Carlos Alcaraz needs to learn lessons from Tiger Woods on anatomical damage

We all know that Tiger Woods is suffering the effects of severe anatomical damage to his body fundamentally due to his extremely physical golf swing. Yes, he also suffers pain from his leg injury from that horrific car crash but at root his pain problems - and consequential opioid pain killer problems - stem from an enormously athletic golf swing generating a huge amount of power which enabled him to launch the golf ball great distances and thereby 'take' golf courses and fire very low scores.

To summarise: Tiger's golf swing was very demanding on his body and eventually it caused great back damaged requiring a lot of surgery and accompanying pain.

Carlos Alcaraz's tennis game has the same foundational problems: hugely athletic and demanding on his body.  He is quick and he is rarely beaten by a ball because he forces his body to do exceptional things. He contorts his body and places huge stresses on it. 

Despite being in his early 20s he is suffering serious injuries already which has led, recently, to him withdrawing from the Madrid Open. His form has dropped off a little due I would argue to his injuries and perhaps exhaustion. To maintain that level of physicality is exhausting.

 Alcaraz told reporters that the injury “is more serious than any of us expected” and said he would “need to listen to my body” to avoid further damage. Wise words. He needs to protect his body going forward.

He has a game style - combined with his enormous natural talent - which will shorten his tennis career. If he modifies his game style to make it less physical he will be notably less successful. Catch 22.

All sports have been progressively more physical and therefore demanding on the anatomy of the sportsmen and women.

This leads to more injuries, more pain in old age after retirement, brain injuries in contact sports and in tennis a demand by the players to curtail the number of tournaments.

Crunch time is coming in golf - time to detune the ball and/or clubs to hit the ball shorter distances - and in tennis - to make is less demanding on the tennis players anatomy. 

It should be noted that this argument only applies at present to the men's game. But I suspect that in due course it will apply to women as well.

-----------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Are Cat Flea Treatments About to Be Restricted in UK? Here’s What’s Going On

There’s been a lot of talk in the UK recently about whether common flea treatments for cats and dogs might soon face new rules. The short version is this: the government is worried that some of the chemicals in popular flea products are ending up in rivers and harming wildlife. They’re now reviewing the situation, but they are not planning a total ban.

The concern centres on two insecticides: fipronil and imidacloprid. These are the active ingredients in many spot‑on flea treatments. They’re very effective at killing fleas, but they’re also extremely toxic to insects in the wider environment. Both chemicals are already banned for outdoor farming use because of the damage they can cause to bees and other pollinators.

So how are they getting into rivers? It turns out that the chemicals don’t just stay on the pet. They can wash off when a cat is bathed, when a dog swims, or even when owners wash their hands after applying the treatment. Wastewater treatment plants can’t remove these substances, so they pass straight through and end up in streams and rivers. Studies have found them in river water, sediments, fish, and even in the nests of wild birds that pick up pet hair for lining.

Because of this, the government is now considering whether flea products should become prescription‑only, meaning you’d need to get them through a vet or a qualified professional rather than buying them freely online or in shops. The aim is to reduce unnecessary routine use and make sure treatments are used only when needed.

Importantly, there is no plan to ban flea treatments altogether. Officials say these medicines are still important for animal health and welfare. The focus is on using them more carefully, not removing them from the market.

For cat owners, nothing changes right now. But it’s worth keeping an eye on the review. If rules do tighten, it may simply mean having a quick chat with your vet before buying your usual flea treatment. The goal is to protect both pets and the environment — and that’s something most of us can get behind.

----------------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Golden Rules for Buying Online

1. Only buy from retailers you already know and trust

If you’ve never used the site before, skip it. A familiar and known website beats a flashy new one every time. I buy most of my online stuff (mainly functional items) on Amazon as they have a great returns policy and are reliable with fast delivery (I use Prime). Stick to 2 or 3 online retailers you have used before and trust. Don't branch out and use an unknown retailer because you are likely to be stung.

2. Stick to Amazon — but only sold by Amazon

Amazon’s own stock, own fulfilment, own returns. That’s the safe zone. Use Amazon Prime and don't deviate. I am not trying to promote Amazon. Just trying to avoid pain-in-the-arse scammers of which there are millions nowadays.

There has been a surge in fake retailer websites. Please be aware of this as it is a major problem.

3. Never follow ads to a shop

• Not Google ads.
• Not Instagram ads.
• Not Facebook ads.
• If you want Amazon, type amazon.co.uk yourself. That is AI advice. I don't do that. But it might be wise for extra certainty.

4. Treat “too good to be true” as “fake”

A £120 jumper for £39 is not a bargain.
It’s bait. Resist the temptation.

5. Check the domain, not the design

Scam sites look perfect.
Domains don’t lie:

• Weird endings = avoid
• Odd spellings = avoid
• Recently registered = avoid

6. Don’t enter card details anywhere unfamiliar

If you’re hesitating, that’s your answer.
Close the tab.

7. Returns policy tells you everything

If it’s vague, missing, or copied from somewhere else, walk away.

8. When in doubt, don’t buy

There will always be another jumper, another sale, another shop.
Your money is worth more than their trick.

If you ignore this advice (!) here are some tips on checking for a fake website:

How to spot a clone site (even when it looks perfect)

Because the fakes are now extremely polished, the old advice (“look for the padlock”) is no longer enough. The more reliable red flags are:

• Too-good-to-be-true pricing (even if only slightly cheaper than normal)

• Odd domain endings (.shop, .top, .store, .xyz) or subtle misspellings

• No physical address or a generic Gmail contact

• No returns policy, or one copied verbatim from another retailer

• Stock photos or product images that appear on multiple unrelated sites

• Checkout pages that feel “off” or ask for unusual information

• No social media presence, or brand accounts created very recently

The explosion in this problem is being fuelled by AI which can create a fake/duplicate website of a well-known retailer to order.

---------------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

AI videos have killed off the idea that aliens can visit planet Earth

One benefit of AI - at least until we tire of it - is that there are now a high percentage of videos on YouTube that have been created by artificial intelligence. These videos are everywhere the YouTube website.

And prominent for me are those videos which present the science and thoughts of Richard Feynman. The man was brilliant but these videos are voiced by AI and the script is not written by Feynman but an anonymous - I presume - scientist or scientists. There are copycat versions all over the website too.

The videos explain conclusively and logically using the science of space/time, the speed of light and the vast distances of the universe that aliens cannot get to Earth and we can't get to see them on their planet either - if they exist. We just don't know.

People think there must be alien life out there because there are billions upon billions of opportunities for intelligent life to evolve. But the evolution of the human is astonishing and it is argued extremely rare - it took 3.5 billion years (3500000000)! Perhaps so rare that there is no other version of us or like us anywhere in our galaxy.

But there are 2-3 trillion galaxies! The point is that the science tells us that it is physically impossible or near impossible for aliens from a far off planet to visit planet Earth.

In effect humans on planet Earth are entirely alone in the black void of the silent universe. And we will remain that way for eternity or as long as the species we know as homo sapiens exists (probably a relative short time such as 10,000 more years due to the self-destructive nature of humans).

Here is one of probably hundreds of videos on this topic. I sense that many people are trying to jump on the Feynman bandwagon and creating their own versions of the same physics.

----------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Money Is Part of the Story Behind Harry and Meghan’s Montecito Exit

For all the soft‑focus language about “new chapters” and “fresh starts,” the push to leave the $21 million Montecito mansion has a harder edge beneath it. Money isn’t the whole story — but it is undeniably part of the gravitational pull dragging the couple toward the exit. It may actually be the central reason. It has been coming when you think of the huge outgoings in maintaining this massive mansion - far too large in truth for their needs. They've burnt through the cash they earned when they were fresh on the scene having left the royal family and become independent. There was the novelty factor then. That's over. They can't earn what is required to maintain this home. That's my personal view and it is probably correct! 😉😎😱

Ah, I almost forgot. Harry is suing newspapers in the UK for hacking (The Sun & Daily Mail I recall but could be wrong). He will probably lose on my assessment. Wait and see. But it is said that his legal costs (or the costs of those suing the newspapers - more than just Harry) will (might) reach £38 million! Some disagree but I have read that number in The Times newspaper That will put a massive dent in his finances and the pain I believe is about to hit him. I think the house sale is in preparation for the exorbitant legal bill. He'll be broke and Meghan will have to do the earning! Not a good framework for a happy marriage I'd also say.

The numbers alone tell you why they have to exit this money pit. Maintaining a Montecito estate of that scale costs $5–6 million a year, once you factor in staff, upkeep, and the single biggest line item: private security. When the Netflix megadeal was active, that burn rate was manageable. With the partnership ended and no equivalent revenue stream replacing it, the arithmetic becomes less forgiving.

Then there’s the house itself. The property carries a $9.5 million mortgage, with monthly repayments estimated between $50,000 and $100,000. Even for wealthy public figures, that is a heavy fixed cost — and one that becomes harder to justify if the home no longer serves their strategic needs.

Some reports go further, suggesting Meghan has been “straddled with debt” from the LA move and sees selling the mansion as a way to reset financially while relocating closer to the industry power centres she wants access to. The sourcing is tabloid‑grade, but the logic aligns with the broader pattern: high costs, reduced income, and a desire to reposition.

And that repositioning matters. Montecito is beautiful, but it’s also quiet, remote, and socially inert for people trying to revive or expand entertainment careers. Meghan reportedly spends hours commuting to LA for meetings. Neighbours keep their distance. The area skews retirement‑village calm, not Hollywood‑adjacent dynamism.

So...money pressures are part of the reason, sitting alongside ambition, relevance, and geography. The couple aren’t broke, but they are living a lifestyle that demands constant high‑octane income. When the income dips and the career momentum stalls, even a $21 million mansion can start to feel like a liability rather than a sanctuary.

---------------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.