BigStar

Yup. You know cause you know. Heh. We need to give you a lot more respect around here. 'Course, I've lived here longer than you have, and don't recall any instances of police extorting people for not carrying their passports. And here we have our man Adam right there on the scene as witness, reporting that the police said the tourists needn't be carrying their passports. Do you also know whether he's been, like, intimidated into silence or filing a false report?

What evidence is there that the police are preying upon any drinkers and so diminishing their benevolent contributions to the local community?

The report specifically says the tourists don't need to be carrying their actual passports. Might be best all round, given you can find only 3 pockets. But if you have a caregiver, perhaps he/she would have an extra pocket in which to bring along the passport you imagine you need.

What did the statement say? Both cases would need meds, or a change of lifestyle, to bring the numbers into normal range. The 85 year old doesn't get a free pass. But he's probably let himself go so many years already that I'd question how much lifestyle change alone--to the extent achievable--could help. Some, perhaps, depending on his condition. He'd probably just add meds to his current stack. A study of interest: The researchers concluded that, for adults aged 80 years or older, intensively controlling systolic blood pressure to less than 120 mmHg lowers the risk of heart attacks, stroke, death, and mild cognitive impairment, but increases the risk of declines in kidney function. [most got the kidney issue under control] --Blood Pressure Control for People Aged 80 and Older: What’s the Right Target?

Sounds like someone could successfully start up a farang charm school to help achieve these better prices for its graduates. The discounts from the docs would soon recover the tuition, except of course in those utterly hopeless cases.

When will they ever learn?

Ubuntu isn't a DE, actually, If the default Gnome isn't your fave (it isn't mine, actually, though I respect it), you can easily install another or choose one of the Ubuntu spins or flavors. You'll be gratified to know that Ubuntu is abandoning Snap: Enough of it! Ubuntu to Ditch Snap Completely With 24.04 LTS Naughty Nightingale It's not backing down on eschewing Flatpak for now. Of course, it's easy enough to install Flatpak anyway. I'd imagine Ubuntu will eventually follow the tide and include it by default. Far as using Ubuntu, w/o going into great detail, I prefer some features of Fedora and OpenSUSE TW. In the latter, I love the rolling release aspect and Btrfs rollback.

The Linux DEs take the classic paradigm to a whole new level. Easy access to everything, beautiful, configurable in ways inconceivable in Windows. Configurability is in general one of the features of Linux often cited by Linux users as most desirable. 'Course, that can get pretty geeky. Always a pleasure going into any of them, Cinnamon, Mate, Xfce, KDE. Currently enjoying Xfce on Fedora (laptop), KDE on OpenSUSE TW (spare).

I'm quite capable of dealing with the "complexity" of Win 10, but I prefer the W7 menu. It's a lot more convenient out of the box what with flyouts etc. By spending the necessary time and tedium, you can of course civilize the Win 10 Start menu to get out of the type/search/scroll loops to find something, but why bother, unless you just have nothing else to do?

As is consistent with my point. Otherwise, chronic complainers about everything have always infested this forum. A few years ago, the brilliant JSixpack collected maybe a hundred of the usual whinges here: The Hit and Run Pattaya "whinge" Thread. ANOTHER pothole targeted at farangs? Thais! How much more???

Quite simply, those paying for an agent will ever try to justify their need to do so.

Projection on your part. Brit? Not everyone here is a bigot. Amazingly. Stood in a queue with them a few evenings ago at a local Tops and all were perfectly well-behaved, including some cute kids. Meanwhile, there's this: British tourist smashes up Bangkok 7-Eleven (video) I'm looking forward to some good visuals during my walk on the beach a few hours from now. Russian hotties in thongs, VERY nice.

The cut-off point for diagnosing high blood pressure does not change with age. --https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-is-the-average-blood-pressure-by-age-chart-and-more#blood-pressure-definition

Cutting out carbs means what is says. You either cut them or you don't. No low carb authority ever recommends cutting them out, so then whom are you arguing against? Reducing means something else yet again. That study refers only to current runners, not those already suffering knee, hip, ankle, and back pain, so a survivorship bias. Of course many with healthy joints that can tolerate running longer distances. Yet as one doc says, If there is a subset of people who have joints that are negatively affected by running, they wouldn't likely be registering for a marathon. If you read the underlying study, of the 3,804 surveyed, 1,892 reported a previous hip or knee injury, and 413 had underwent knee or hip surgery. Overall, 36.4% reported experiencing hip or knee pain in the past year and 7.3% had been diagnosed with arthritis. So one may give it a try for himself and see how it goes. Small imbalances, misalignment, and instability, if they exist, create chronic issues. As one orthopedist says, Osteoarthritis is not caused by normal wear-and-tear, it's caused by chronic joint instability which results in abnormal stress on the cartilage. If you have chronic joint instability, you are at high risk of developing osteoarthritis, and running can speed up the process. Having run marathons myself, known a lot of runners, and done quite a lot of reading over the years, I don't really recommend much running or even a lot of what's popularly called "cardio," after Ken Cooper. (Unless that's all you've got.) As Dr. Doug McGuff says, Cooper believed (falsely, as it happens) that the aerobic subsection of metabolism was the most important—more important, in fact, than the totality of metabolic pathways that contribute to human functioning and health. He maintained that this one subsegment of metabolism could and should be isolated and trained. His belief in this regard has since been shown to be without foundation. So then, having read Cooper et. al., I've finally come to agree that overall muscle training for functional fitness (not bodybuilding) is the better way to go. Safer, faster, more efficient, more useful--if done right. McGuff continues, The center of metabolic health, then, is not the heart and cardiovascular system; it is the muscular system. That’s where the enzymatic activity takes place, and it takes place by means of an amplification cascade, so that when you activate the cause, the effect is much greater at the muscular level. It’s in muscle where all the “gold” that can be panned from exercise is found. --Body By Science So my nod to "cardio" nowadays merely involves sprint intervals on a recumbent bike for a total intensity of 3 min a week. Could be excessive, but works verifiably well as predicted by Martin Gibala's classic study: Twelve Weeks of Sprint Interval Training Improves Indices of Cardiometabolic Health Similar to Traditional Endurance Training despite a Five-Fold Lower Exercise Volume and Time Commitment Been more research verifying his conclusions. He has a book out, if interested. Meanwhile, you mostly ignored my questions raised by your post, so you're not really discussing in good faith, not suprisingly. Same implications get the same response, of course. And I did merely say, "most." ???? No nonsense, supported by long threads full of good, besotted, classic ANF Longevity Research such as Throwing caution to the wind and b u g g e r the diet – How about you and Exercise is everything. Gold mines, those two. And normally, except for the genetically gifted, when you get older you basically have only two choices: healthy lifestyle or medication. Listen, but verify. Now, it is a (cough) fact that your body may not be an unbiased advocate regarding your diet and exercise, as is illustrated on the streets daily. Throughout all these years, mine has always told me do something other than exercise, for example. It's always been an effort. But that's an affirmation, in an unintuitive sort of way. As P. D. Mangan says, Anticipating doing my workouts evokes some dread in me, and I want to keep it that way.

Then you'll need to start taking McDougall w/ a pinch of salt as well. Looks senile and decayed.

Pro tip: don't go on busy days. Or carry a brollie (none seem to have sense to do that), bush hat, water, and a portable seat. Here's one at Lazada modeled by an expat prone to chills:

Doing good then. If you happen to have any interest in further (serious) reading, PM and I'll send you a link to a .zip containing a number of e-books I've found beneficial or reinforcing.

Usual straw man argument often seen here. Nobody but extreme carnivores suggest or even imply cutting out carbs. Who said, "better?" And what kind of workout, exactly, in detail? According to what schedule? Muddled. This study is merely observational, BTW. Main point to take away is that engaging in too much prolonged vigorous exercise brings about a diminishing return. Nothing new there, inevitable conclusion really. Meanwhile, you have P. D. Mangan's relatively short intense (30 min/wk x 2) workouts, and a low carb diet, producing impressive (natural) results in a 68-year-old former skinny geek microbiologist, great blood markers. I'm finding his general principles (derived from the Arthur Jones/Doug McGuff/Atkins line) personally effective. Less work, more results a la Pareto Principle. Better than what? The study isn't examining any "short sharp" exercise variable. The blood lipid numbers are the key indicators of effectiveness. You may feel really great while chronic disease progresses behind the scenes. Seen that, in fact. Keeping it a bay may be--SHOCK--less difficult for some than for others, as with many things in life, except for those truly favored by the Genetics Voodoo. Here, our Life Coaches generally advocate for that short but happy life ending with a smile on one's face during a bonk. It never seems to work out quite that way, according to so many posts in the Health forum. A few of us prefer to avoid the need for meds and make some effort towards a long but happy life, postponing and compressing the fight against chronic disease to a shorter period towards the very end. Up2u. It's the same old discussion repeated countless times here. Really not worth having again and again.

Maybe they tried the others? Some say they work? Not everyone is miserable, so they wish to try? Figure it out. BTW, low carb is well-established and not a fad diet as the ignorant proclaim. Only one or two members here actually know anything about it. Everyone knows that, and so 73.6% of the US population is overweight (including the obese) and 88% metabolically unhealthy. Yeah, works great. ???? Perhaps the definition of healthy food, as determined by the food processing industry and their lobbyists, needs a bit of revision towards the low glycemic end of the food spectrum.

Bad video, doesn't bother to give the link to the study referenced, so it probably won't hold up to scrutiny. Doesn't understand 'bout cholesterol & stuff. Not worth watching even the first 10-20 min. Clickbait, basically. Funny how the comments contain a lot of positive testimonials from low carbers. ????

I've never had any problems with the service level for more than 2 decades. Nor did @champersthe other day.

Ace ANF Hydraulic Engineers, those left alive after The Tunnel debacle, determined that any underground toilets would simply flood. Besides, they'd always be occupied as short-time rooms by the mongers.

That's it. Excellent point.

People wouldn't trouble themselves to walk to them, as they don't now to the lights or crosswalks. Many an expat or tourist would find it stressful to walk up the stairs.

No, the question, if any, was one of whether complaints had to be taken seriously or not. The article plays to the sense of superiority felt by those who think only they foresaw something.