u/stereomatch

EDIT: Added second video at end about the novel "sitting posture" bow stringing technique Matt Damon uses at the end - and how it is a pleasant surprise that it actually is an easier technique than standing up

 

Very good video on archery in Odyssey movie by YouTube trick shot archer "blumineck" (from 2 hours ago)

He praises things

And the things that could have been improved

He also demonstrates the arrow through 12 axes trick shot

He says one of the problem is that Matt Damon as Odysseus was not allowed a stunt double for the last scenes

He also gives suggestions about how how the scene could have been structured

It gets interesting at the 8:50 minute mark:

https://youtu.be/zDkktsXzxoY&t=530

 

Full video:

https://youtu.be/zDkktsXzxoY

The Odyssey Archery Review (and attempting the 12 axes challenge)

blumineck

Jul 31, 2026

00:00​ Introduction - https://youtu.be/zDkktsXzxoY&t=0

04:41​ Archery Technique - https://youtu.be/zDkktsXzxoY&t=281

10:33​ Stringing the Bow (challenge 1) - https://youtu.be/zDkktsXzxoY&t=633

15:06​ The Bow Pluck (and bow sounds) - https://youtu.be/zDkktsXzxoY&t=906

18:41​ The 12 Axes Shot - https://youtu.be/zDkktsXzxoY&t=1121

27:32​ Odysseus vs the suitors - https://youtu.be/zDkktsXzxoY&t=1652

35:09​ Conclusions - https://youtu.be/zDkktsXzxoY&t=2109

 

EDIT: Here is YouTube archery channel "Shadiversity" examination of the uncommon "sitting posture" stringing of bow by Matt Damon in the ending scenes (which is a departure from earlier flashback showing him use the more common "standing posture" technique for stringing recurve bows) (recurve - meaning backward curving bow - as Odysseus' is shown to be in movie and in original sources)

He is pleasantly surprised that the movie gets this right - the ”sitting posture” turns out to be easier (he can't contain his giggling after that realization)

at the 13:50 minute mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMBvEvinF7Y&t=830

 

Full video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMBvEvinF7Y

Can you string a WARBOW like ODYSSEUS in The ODYSSEY?

Shadiversity

Jul 20, 2026

**SUMMARY:** Dynamic popup menus should be disallowed - they introduce uncertainty which reduces user confidence (creates hesitation before click to be sure the popup menu has "stabilized"!) - AND it breaks the user interface for TalkBack and blind users (and if dynamic popup menus get disabled for TalkBack users as a workaround, then that creates fragmentation for developers when designing)

 

Popups which have CHANGING options over time - it would seem would have been an obvious no-no for a user interface expert who was vetting changes

It violates a presumption that blind users rely on - visual stability - what appears once on screen in menus will not be changing over time for no apparent reason

AND it is disconcerting to normal users as well

After selecting text, the popup appears, you go to click the Copy option in the popup menu - but just before your click registers, the popup option below your finger shifts (because Add Event or some such new option has just appeared) and you wind up clicking Select All instead

This is bad enough for a sighted user

It is terrible for a blind user relying on TalkBack voice feedback on what is on screen

 

Which genius at Google thought up the brilliant idea of dynamic options in popup menus?

Did they get feted for it - and did it justify a promotion?

More importantly, what is going on at Google - are these accidents, or is there a culture of destroying their own company?

 

What explains these changes they feel compelled to make every year in full or half-baked form - or in forms that break the basics of user interface design - or common sense

 

**References:**

https://www.reddit.com/r/android\_devs/comments/1k39q9s/is\_text\_selection\_broken\_in\_current\_versions\_of/

Is text selection broken in current versions of Android? Varies by app

SUMMARY: Dynamic popup menus should be disallowed - they introduce uncertainty which reduces user confidence (creates hesitation before click to be sure the popup menu has "stabilized"!) - AND it breaks the user interface for TalkBack and blind users (and if dynamic popup menus get disabled for TalkBack users as a workaround, then that creates fragmentation for developers when designing)

EDIT: tried to post this as text post on r/androiddev - didn't appear (at some point it's AI filter said something about post may be offensive) - tried posting to r/android - turns out I am perma-banned there (I have been away for a while from android) and it seems the censorship on other sub-reddits has made it's way to the android sub-reddits as well - it is as if these forums are not for public comment but to assuage company egos

CORRECTION: the post on r/androiddev is now appearing - my comment there (using np.* nonparticipation link to avoid brigading): https://np.reddit.com/r/androiddev/comments/1v8w389/comment/p09chzs/

CORRECTION 2: ok the mods of r/androiddev have removed the post because it is a "meme, rant or venting"

 

Popups which have CHANGING options over time - it would seem would have been an obvious no-no for a user interface expert who was vetting changes

It violates a presumption that blind users rely on - visual stability - what appears once on screen in menus will not be changing over time for no apparent reason

AND it is disconcerting to normal users as well

After selecting text, the popup appears, you go to click the Copy option in the popup menu - but just before your click registers, the popup option below your finger shifts (because Add Event or some such new option has just appeared) and you wind up clicking Select All instead

This is bad enough for a sighted user

It is terrible for a blind user relying on TalkBack voice feedback on what is on screen

 

Which genius at Google thought up the brilliant idea of dynamic options in popup menus?

Did they get feted for it - and did it justify a promotion?

More importantly, what is going on at Google - are these accidents, or is there a culture of destroying their own company?

 

What explains these changes they feel compelled to make every year in full or half-baked form - or in forms that break the basics of user interface design - or common sense

 

References:

https://www.reddit.com/r/android_devs/comments/1k39q9s/is_text_selection_broken_in_current_versions_of/

Is text selection broken in current versions of Android? Varies by app

NOTE: please discuss the recommendations below with your doctor

 

I would like to add a note on the skepticism in the mainstream media and among mainstream doctors for IVM (the "horse dewormer" drug - Ivermectin)

While it is true that IVM is not a one drug immediate solution for long haulers or post-vax issues

It should be noted that the signal is there for why it should be part of every protocol

 

There are many signals for it's efficacy that early treatment doctors have observed - I have observed it's post-exposure prophylaxis efficacy in households with index cases during the Delta variant - without the prophylaxis the whole household would fall sick - with it, the cases would be restricted to the index cases

 

However there is one place where it single-handedly shows efficacy is post-COVID19 anosmia/Parosmia (ie taste/smell dysfunction - which affects 1/5 to 1/10 COVID19 cases)

This is why I have been suggesting to early treatment doctors (like the FLCCC/IMA) that anosmia is a good way to present IVM - but most of the effort to normalize IVM use has been in arguing for mortality benefit etc

While anosmia remains an easily verifiable metric - within a few days and a few successive cases, a doctor will build up the confidence that this drug does have activity

 

So far I have seen 100% efficacy in all the recent anosmia cases I have seen - which have been 13-14 anosmia cases (this has been from a pool of 100+ COVID-19 cases)

The most recent anosmia (rarer now) reversal was a couple of months ago - 2 weeks of fatigue and anosmia after a minor case of "flu"/covid19

I told her it should reverse within 2 days and should see some relief in the fatigue (having seen this pattern repeat predictably in all previous cases)

And after 1-2 days she was at 100% smell

And cooked for the first time in 2 weeks - ie fatigue was gone

 

And in the months old cases - also I have seen 100% efficacy - with a longer treatment protocol - in the 3-4 cases I have seen

(though I concede this is not enough data and doesn't cover years old cases)

The pattern generally is that for old cases - more than 1 cycle may be needed - so for example 5 days of IVM 0.4mg/kg - split into morning/evening dose - taken with fatty meal or meal

Then can take a 3 day break - if want to avoid any visual disturbance side effects

Then take another 5 day course

Usually I would ask them to increase their Vitamin D levels as well

 

So just from this information, I feel that IVM should be first drug of choice as part of any protocol

Because of it's efficacy against post-COVID19 anosmia (which is a hard problem)

 

In my experience IVM also has been effective in removing fatigue as well for recent post-COVID19 cases - and in some old cases - both long haulers and post-vax

So it should be part of the protocols

 

Also because of the media paranoia created around IVM as some sort of litmus test for sanity or irrationality - I am unsure if the people who "try" IVM actually have used it for more than a few days

Since it is a relatively safe drug - it can be taken for 5 days - take a 3 day break (if you want to avoid the visual disturbances side effect) - and repeated

So my question is how many long haulers are actually trying longer term IVM use as part of their wider protocol

Instead of trying it for 5 days then writing it off

 

Summary: IVM shows single-drug response for some post-COVID19 persistent side effects like anosmia/Parosmia - which have no other comparable treatments (Stellate Ganglion Block SGB comes in a distant second - smell restraining which is the standard of care is not even partly effective) - which alone makes it an essential component to consider for protocols for long haulers - IVM hesitancy may also contribute to shorter duration use (when the drug can be easily tolerated with repeated dosing with breaks)

 

For more information on post-COVID19 anosmia, you can visit:

r/covid19anosmia

r/ivermectin

 

You would think this information would be welcomed on sub-reddits like:

r/covidlonghaulers

r/anosmia

r/Parosmia

But you would be mistaken - as these - and many of the mainstream sub-reddits - as policy - will perma-ban you if you suggest Ivermectin does anything for COVID-19

Recall that during the pandemic, YouTube actually had Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine mentioned by name in the YouTube terms of service - as unbelievable an overreach as that may seem, that was the state of affairs during the pandemic

NOTE: please discuss the recommendations below with your doctor

 

I would like to add a note on the skepticism in the mainstream media and among mainstream doctors for IVM (the "horse dewormer" drug - Ivermectin)

While it is true that IVM is not a one drug immediate solution for long haulers or post-vax issues

It should be noted that the signal is there for why it should be part of every protocol

 

There are many signals for it's efficacy that early treatment doctors have observed - I have observed it's post-exposure prophylaxis efficacy in households with index cases during the Delta variant - without the prophylaxis the whole household would fall sick - with it, the cases would be restricted to the index cases

 

However there is one place where it single-handedly shows efficacy is post-COVID19 anosmia/Parosmia (ie taste/smell dysfunction - which affects 1/5 to 1/10 COVID19 cases)

This is why I have been suggesting to early treatment doctors (like the FLCCC/IMA) that anosmia is a good way to present IVM - but most of the effort to normalize IVM use has been in arguing for mortality benefit etc

While anosmia remains an easily verifiable metric - within a few days and a few successive cases, a doctor will build up the confidence that this drug does have activity

 

So far I have seen 100% efficacy in all the recent anosmia cases I have seen - which have been 13-14 anosmia cases (this has been from a pool of 100+ COVID-19 cases)

The most recent anosmia (rarer now) reversal was a couple of months ago - 2 weeks of fatigue and anosmia after a minor case of "flu"/covid19

I told her it should reverse within 2 days and should see some relief in the fatigue (having seen this pattern repeat predictably in all previous cases)

And after 1-2 days she was at 100% smell

And cooked for the first time in 2 weeks - ie fatigue was gone

 

And in the months old cases - also I have seen 100% efficacy - with a longer treatment protocol - in the 3-4 cases I have seen

(though I concede this is not enough data and doesn't cover years old cases)

The pattern generally is that for old cases - more than 1 cycle may be needed - so for example 5 days of IVM 0.4mg/kg - split into morning/evening dose - taken with fatty meal or meal

Then can take a 3 day break - if want to avoid any visual disturbance side effects

Then take another 5 day course

Usually I would ask them to increase their Vitamin D levels as well

 

So just from this information, I feel that IVM should be first drug of choice as part of any protocol

Because of it's efficacy against post-COVID19 anosmia (which is a hard problem)

 

In my experience IVM also has been effective in removing fatigue as well for recent post-COVID19 cases - and in some old cases - both long haulers and post-vax

So it should be part of the protocols

 

Also because of the media paranoia created around IVM as some sort of litmus test for sanity or irrationality - I am unsure if the people who "try" IVM actually have used it for more than a few days

Since it is a relatively safe drug - it can be taken for 5 days - take a 3 day break (if you want to avoid the visual disturbances side effect) - and repeated

So my question is how many long haulers are actually trying longer term IVM use as part of their wider protocol

Instead of trying it for 5 days then writing it off

 

Summary: IVM shows single-drug response for some post-COVID19 persistent side effects like anosmia/Parosmia - which have no other comparable treatments (Stellate Ganglion Block SGB comes in a distant second - smell restraining which is the standard of care is not even partly effective) - which alone makes it an essential component to consider for protocols for long haulers - IVM hesitancy may also contribute to shorter duration use (when the drug can be easily tolerated with repeated dosing with breaks)

 

For more information on post-COVID19 anosmia, you can visit:

r/covid19anosmia

r/ivermectin

 

You would think this information would be welcomed on sub-reddits like:

r/covidlonghaulers

r/anosmia

r/Parosmia

But you would be mistaken - as these - and many of the mainstream sub-reddits - as policy - will perma-ban you if you suggest Ivermectin does anything for COVID-19

Recall that during the pandemic, YouTube actually had Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine mentioned by name in the YouTube terms of service - as unbelievable an overreach as that may seem, that was the state of affairs during the pandemic

NOTE: please discuss the recommendations below with your doctor

 

I would like to add a note on the skepticism in the mainstream media and among mainstream doctors for IVM (the "horse dewormer" drug - Ivermectin)

While it is true that IVM is not a one drug immediate solution for long haulers or post-vax issues

It should be noted that the signal is there for why it should be part of every protocol

 

There are many signals for it's efficacy that early treatment doctors have observed - I have observed it's post-exposure prophylaxis efficacy in households with index cases during the Delta variant - without the prophylaxis the whole household would fall sick - with it, the cases would be restricted to the index cases

 

However there is one place where it single-handedly shows efficacy is post-COVID19 anosmia/Parosmia (ie taste/smell dysfunction - which affects 1/5 to 1/10 COVID19 cases)

This is why I have been suggesting to early treatment doctors (like the FLCCC/IMA) that anosmia is a good way to present IVM - but most of the effort to normalize IVM use has been in arguing for mortality benefit etc

While anosmia remains an easily verifiable metric - within a few days and a few successive cases, a doctor will build up the confidence that this drug does have activity

 

So far I have seen 100% efficacy in all the recent anosmia cases I have seen - which have been 13-14 anosmia cases (this has been from a pool of 100+ COVID-19 cases)

The most recent anosmia (rarer now) reversal was a couple of months ago - 2 weeks of fatigue and anosmia after a minor case of "flu"/covid19

I told her it should reverse within 2 days and should see some relief in the fatigue (having seen this pattern repeat predictably in all previous cases)

And after 1-2 days she was at 100% smell

And cooked for the first time in 2 weeks - ie fatigue was gone

 

And in the months old cases - also I have seen 100% efficacy - with a longer treatment protocol - in the 3-4 cases I have seen

(though I concede this is not enough data and doesn't cover years old cases)

The pattern generally is that for old cases - more than 1 cycle may be needed - so for example 5 days of IVM 0.4mg/kg - split into morning/evening dose - taken with fatty meal or meal

Then can take a 3 day break - if want to avoid any visual disturbance side effects

Then take another 5 day course

Usually I would ask them to increase their Vitamin D levels as well

 

So just from this information, I feel that IVM should be first drug of choice as part of any protocol

Because of it's efficacy against post-COVID19 anosmia (which is a hard problem)

 

In my experience IVM also has been effective in removing fatigue as well for recent post-COVID19 cases - and in some old cases - both long haulers and post-vax

So it should be part of the protocols

 

Also because of the media paranoia created around IVM as some sort of litmus test for sanity or irrationality - I am unsure if the people who "try" IVM actually have used it for more than a few days

Since it is a relatively safe drug - it can be taken for 5 days - take a 3 day break (if you want to avoid the visual disturbances side effect) - and repeated

So my question is how many long haulers are actually trying longer term IVM use as part of their wider protocol

Instead of trying it for 5 days then writing it off

 

Summary: IVM shows single-drug response for some post-COVID19 persistent side effects like anosmia/Parosmia - which have no other comparable treatments (Stellate Ganglion Block SGB comes in a distant second - smell restraining which is the standard of care is not even partly effective) - which alone makes it an essential component to consider for protocols for long haulers - IVM hesitancy may also contribute to shorter duration use (when the drug can be easily tolerated with repeated dosing with breaks)

 

For more information on post-COVID19 anosmia, you can visit:

r/covid19anosmia

r/ivermectin

 

You would think this information would be welcomed on sub-reddits like:

r/covidlonghaulers

r/anosmia

r/Parosmia

But you would be mistaken - as these - and many of the mainstream sub-reddits - as policy - will perma-ban you if you suggest Ivermectin does anything for COVID-19

Recall that during the pandemic, YouTube actually had Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine mentioned by name in the YouTube terms of service - as unbelievable an overreach as that may seem, that was the state of affairs during the pandemic

I would like to add a note on the skepticism in the mainstream media and among mainstream doctors for IVM (the "horse dewormer" drug - Ivermectin)

While it is true that IVM is not a one drug immediate solution for long haulers or post-vax issues

It should be noted that the signal is there for why it should be part of every protocol

 

There are many signals for it's efficacy that early treatment doctors have observed - I have observed it's post-exposure prophylaxis efficacy in households with index cases during the Delta variant - without the prophylaxis the whole household would fall sick - with it, the cases would be restricted to the index cases

 

However there is one place where it single-handedly shows efficacy is post-COVID19 anosmia/Parosmia (ie taste/smell dysfunction - which affects 1/5 to 1/10 COVID19 cases)

This is why I have been suggesting to early treatment doctors (like the FLCCC/IMA) that anosmia is a good way to present IVM - but most of the effort to normalize IVM use has been in arguing for mortality benefit etc

While anosmia remains an easily verifiable metric - within a few days and a few successive cases, a doctor will build up the confidence that this drug does have activity

 

So far I have seen 100% efficacy in all the recent anosmia cases I have seen - which have been 13-14 anosmia cases (this has been from a pool of 100+ COVID-19 cases)

The most recent anosmia (rarer now) reversal was a couple of months ago - 2 weeks of fatigue and anosmia after a minor case of "flu"/covid19

I told her it should reverse within 2 days and should see some relief in the fatigue (having seen this pattern repeat predictably in all previous cases)

And after 1-2 days she was at 100% smell

And cooked for the first time in 2 weeks - ie fatigue was gone

 

And in the months old cases - also I have seen 100% efficacy - with a longer treatment protocol - in the 3-4 cases I have seen

(though I concede this is not enough data and doesn't cover years old cases)

The pattern generally is that for old cases - more than 1 cycle may be needed - so for example 5 days of IVM 0.4mg/kg - split into morning/evening dose - taken with fatty meal or meal

Then can take a 3 day break - if want to avoid any visual disturbance side effects

Then take another 5 day course

Usually I would ask them to increase their Vitamin D levels as well

 

So just from this information, I feel that IVM should be first drug of choice as part of any protocol

Because of it's efficacy against post-COVID19 anosmia (which is a hard problem)

 

In my experience IVM also has been effective in removing fatigue as well for recent post-COVID19 cases - and in some old cases - both long haulers and post-vax

So it should be part of the protocols

 

Also because of the media paranoia created around IVM as some sort of litmus test for sanity or irrationality - I am unsure if the people who "try" IVM actually have used it for more than a few days

Since it is a relatively safe drug - it can be taken for 5 days - take a 3 day break (if you want to avoid the visual disturbances side effect) - and repeated

So my question is how many long haulers are actually trying longer term IVM use as part of their wider protocol

Instead of trying it for 5 days then writing it off

 

Summary: IVM shows single-drug response for some post-COVID19 persistent side effects like anosmia/Parosmia - which have no other comparable treatments (Stellate Ganglion Block SGB comes in a distant second - smell restraining which is the standard of care is not even partly effective) - which alone makes it an essential component to consider for protocols for long haulers - IVM hesitancy may also contribute to shorter duration use (when the drug can be easily tolerated with repeated dosing with breaks)

 

For more information on post-COVID19 anosmia, you can visit:

r/covid19anosmia

r/ivermectin

 

You would think this information would be welcomed on sub-reddits like:

r/covidlonghaulers

r/anosmia

r/Parosmia

But you would be mistaken - as these - and many of the mainstream sub-reddits - as policy - will perma-ban you if you suggest Ivermectin does anything for COVID-19

Recall that during the pandemic, YouTube actually had Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine mentioned by name in the YouTube terms of service - as unbelievable an overreach as that may seem, that was the state of affairs during the pandemic