SpicyAnt

La lechuga del diablo.

Mr Beast went through four controversies in a short amount of time:

In response to both of these, Mr. Beast cut Ava out of Mr. Beast.

(3) There is a "Beast Games" show being produced by Mr. Beast for Amazon Prime. It turns out that putting 2,000 people to compete for 5 million dollars in Las Vegas was a recipe for organizational disaster. People had issues getting their medicines and underwear. People were fed low-calorie meals like a small amount of cold oatmeal and an egg spread at irregular intervals. Some people had seizures and the local hospital reported several injured visitors from the games. It was reported that the team invited people of all ages and then made them compete in physical games for which young men had a very significant advantage over the old players that were also cast. You can see an article about this here, and in the comments you can see many players sharing their bad experiences: https://www.casino.org/vitalvegas/mrbeast-shoots-beast-games-in-las-vegas/

(4) A person who has an employee for a short amount of time released a video in which he claimed a lot of Mr. Beast videos are faked/rigged. He also mentions multiple examples in which Mr. Beast broke lottery laws.

The IP is dynamic, but for my self-hosted services that require a static IP I make use of a WireGuard tunnel between my raspberry pi and a virtual private server. The VPS has a static IP, so my domains point at the VPS and then the VPS re-routes the packets via the wireguard tunnel. In a wire guard tunnel only the server needs a static IP, so the VPS can route packets to the client even if the client's ip is dynamic.

Also in the Netherlands and I have recently extended this concept to my home internet. Since 25 Mbps download / 10 Mbps upload is enough for my use, I no longer have an internet subscription and I make use of $25 LycaMobile unlimited data sim cards for home internet using a sim router. The IMEI of the router can be easily modified, which is also a plus.

Sounds exhausting 😅

1. It rings a bell but I am not familiar with the details, I will look into it but I can't address it right away. I am well aware that the US is an imperialist nation that has committed and continues to commit horrible acts all over the world. But the point is that this is not the official narrative of the US government. They may give some concessions about what occurred in the past, but the official narrative about what is happening now is always that they and their friends are the good guys.

2. I am not from the US and the question is about conspiracy theories in other countries. If the question means whether Americans are more prone to believe US-conspiracy theories, then yes, simply because they are much more likely to be aware of them. Many people in other countries don't consume as much media in English and might have no idea who Jeffrey Epstein was. So they probably have no opinion on whether there was foul play on his dead. But I think that if you talk to someone in Mexico and tell them the story of Epstein, most will agree that there was foul play involved. I am telling you this from my personal experience, at least within my circle but I think it expands more generally. We have a general distrust of the government and law enforcement, and so a story in which foul play is involved to silence someone else resonates. It happens all the time! Journalists are being killed all the time around here to silence them, and very often they are being critical of people in power.... Is it really that unwarranted to be suspicious?

Fascist as in the US actively supporting and financing terrorism in countries it wants control over, historically.

Isn't this a conspiracy theory? I think that the official position of the US is that they are not financing terrorists, and many of their military actions have been performed to defend citizens from their ruler's human rights violations. Isn't the Cuban embargo officially there to protect the Cubans against human rights violations? I think that arguing otherwise makes one a conspiracy theorist.

I am not saying this to argue, I am trying to explain what I understand with conspiracy theory - someone who is skeptical about the official narrative, and believes that those in power will not always be transparent and honest to the public.

And I think that being suspicious has been co-opted by the right wing, yes.

I am aware of the "drain the swamp" rhetoric, that there was a QAnon, anti-vax, and other more fringe theories. But I think that this is a sub-set of conspiracy theorizing that is amplified by the media. Many conspiracy theorists are investigative journalists and critics of governments. And many conspiracy theories have ended up being true. I don't think that critical thought and skepticism is an exercise that only right-wingers should participate in.

What do you mean? Can you describe what you mean with 'fascist rulership'? Then maybe I can try.

For example... people in Mexico many people suspect that politicians have associations with drug dealers, and many believe believe that particular bureaucratic systems (such as handing out public infrastructure projects) are exploited to distribute funds in ways that benefit those in power and their friends, these people I would classify as "conspiracy theorists", and in many cases they have been correct. You think that these people will always side with fascist rulership?

I think that the distrust of governments and generally those in power is a world-wide phenomenon. But I personally don't think that it is unwarranted. Corruption, abuses of power, and conspiracies are widespread.

“In November I had received two letters from Teachers’ Pensions asking me euphemistically if I was dead,”

I am curious about how one euphemistically asks someone if they are dead. Any guess?

EDIT: Ah! After sending this answer I saw jorge's answer!! So this answer is redundant, but at least you can see that two people arrived at virtually the same conclusion 😀

We need to define a threshold of energy that we consider "ionizing radiation", and we also need to a more precise definition of "starlight".

I will arbitrarily select the ionizing radiation threshold to be at 10 eV (124 nm). As for "starlight", let's just say that we want to push the 750 nm red light all the way until the point where it becomes ionizing. One thing to consider is that in this situation you will also push infra-red light from the stars towards the visible, so if a star emits a lot infrared this IR light will become "starlight". So the answer can be muddled up by all of these definitions as well as the emission properties of the star.

To keep it simple... Let's shift 750 nm red light to 124 nm ionizing radiation. You can rearrange the Doppler expression from this website to solve for the "v" to get the velocity needed to transform 750 nm to 124 nm. The solution I get is -284,035,329 m/s, with the "-" sign indicating movement of the receiver towards the source.

You can double-check by inputting 750 nm as the wavelength from the light emitted by the source, -284,035,329 m/s as the velocity, and the speed of light as "c":

Then, if you agree with the assumptions, definitions, and the analysis, the receiver needs to move at about 94.68% the speed of light to shift the redder starlight into the ionizing radiation range.