.... the only group I can actively imagine making use of [2nd amendment] against the government is also the group I least want to see use it against the government.

Then perhaps you should read a little history and see who has actually used privately-owned guns against their own govrernments - and what has happened when privately owned weapons were banned and confiscated.

You should also consider that privately owned guns are "used" against governments by simply being there, rather than fired.

Example: Richard Nixon is on record, during the Vietnam conflict, as having asked a think tank what would happen if the elections were canceled and being told that this would be a likely trigger for an armed uprising to overthrow him.

You should also know that there is a certain amount of posturing involved. With using nukes to prevent nuclear war via the Mutually Assured Distruction doctrine, Presidents had to put on a show of being just crazy enough to actually USE them - whether they were or not. In the case of individuals with small arms it may not be "crazy" (as in "blow up the world") - just "dedicated". But for the threat to be effective at averting conflict it must appear to be real.

Think of gun in private hands as paying an insurance premium.

Also:

  - Give him a title that would go for $40k and actual job responsibilities that would go for $130k.

  - See what's on his resume and write a req that requires ALL of it and NOTHING ELSE, regardless of what the job actually entails.

They can start with the CEO's, who are the most globally uncompetitive. ... go to Canada and get a CEO for about 5% the cost of a US one.

With US CDOs you're not paying for work. You're paying for being politically connected. This is mainly connections to financing sources - the closer to the FED, the more financing you can get and the less you pay for it. But it's also about being able to influence governnent policy and lawmaking. There's also being able to recruit people for other executive suite positions. Then there's managing news coverage: Setting stock market expectations so you can continually exceed them, not getting smeared, getting publicity that encoruages people to buy the product rather than trash the company, and so on.

Actually running the company comes in maybe fourth or lower.

If you place it in front of the eye lens - contact lenses count - then you need the output visible light to be going in the same direction as the input IR light.
There are no common physical processes that can do this.

Frequency-doubling crystals do this - combining two photons going in the same direction into one of twice the frequency. (That's how some green laser diodes work - bumping up infrared.) Not practical for a sensor, since you need a LOT of infrared that's IN PHASE to pull this off.

I, too, had seen the "contact lens" claim and read TFA to see if they had found some stimulated-emission phenomenon (say, one where they pumped the graphine to an excited state and got infrared photons to trigger the emission of a visible photon moving the same way). So I was very disappointed to find it was a FET with the gate stimulated by a graphene infrared-to-E-field transducer, suitable for a retina but not to convert flying photons.

Infrared is too long a wavelength for something like paving a contact lens with a fly's eye of micro-camera-display converters. So I don't see infra-vision contact lenses coming out of THIS breakthrough. Maybe a google-glass analog, or a two-way variant of the Israeli regular-glasses heads-up display with the imbedded refractive-index-change partial mirror that projects the little display near the hinge as if it were a screen in front of you at infinity or task-distance.

Actual clinical depression is a serious disorder and of course has existed throughout history. However, currently about a quarter of women in the US between 40 and 50 are on antidepressant drugs at any one time, and about 10% of all Americans over 12.

In particular, (I've heard that) more than 50% of adult women in the US have been treated for depression at least once in their lives.

This is a source of one of the major pushbacks against gun control proposals that ban people who have seen a shrink from ever having guns: It would disarm the bulk of women (including especially those who are being stalked or attacked, who are likely to have a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder label hung on them.)

Interestingly, while severely clinically depressed patients may be suicide risks and thus a "danger to themselves", the depressed in general are much LESS likely to be a danger to others than the average of the population - even when treated with antidepressant drugs.

(The occasional person who goes on a crime spree when on antidepressants is the result of another phenomenon: People can be both psychopaths and clinically depressed. The depression debilitates them so they don't act out. Treat the depression and you have a fully-functional psychopath. There is some discussion in the psychiatric community, as a result, over whether it might be ethical to refuse to treat the depression of severe, uncompemsated, psychopaths/)

as we get better at diagnosing conditions like this, naturally there will be a rise in the number of positive diagnoses.

With ADHD the educational system has several incentives - both administrative and financial - to hang the label on kids. The percentage diagnosed with this condition has also experienced substantial growth (and there is a substantial controversey of whether this is the result of the incentives rather than a rise in the condition). Perhaps a similar situation is present with the Autisim-Spectrum diagnosis.

If the school systems labeling nerdy kids with "autism sufferer" leads to them reducing the amount they try to force them to be standardized jocks, defending them more from bullies, and giving them a quiet environment to learn, I'd applaud and promote the increase in the practice. B-)