If I find that particular paper again I'll let you know. And depression as a consequence of subclinical hypothyroidism is very well established, but no longer generally acted upon. It used to be routinely treated as such, but when the TSH test came to prominence, most doctors started treating to make nice test results rather than treating the patients' symptoms.... despite that all the evidence is against using TSH as anything but a crude marker that something is wrong. False negatives are extremely common.

Here's a starter kit:
http://hormonerestoration.com/...

I have Hashimoto's thyroiditis, and I've had to take up reading the Journal of Endocrinology in sheer self-defense. It's quite shocking how much well-established endocrine research has never filtered down to GPs, never mind other specialty fields, despite that a malfunctioning endocrine system can fuck up just about anything else. I've concluded it should be the first line of inquiry (since fixing the thyroid will commonly cure a whole raft of apparently-unrelated physical and mental symptoms), but most doctors act like it's the last resort.

There's nothing better for turning you into a nervous wreck than knowing that your every word and motion are going to be dissected with the goal of disqualifying you...

Probably the most common cause of depression is subclinical hypothyroidism, specifically with low T3. One psychiatrist found that he could cure 90% of his patients by prescribing T3 to bring their active thyroid hormone level up to normal. (Prescribing T4 alone didn't work, probably because poor T4-to-T3 conversion is part of the problem here.)

Then it needs to be part of the qualifying exam, not external to that. If it's part of the exam, then it's obviously not going to be secret from the pilot examiners.

(Actually, I thought this was how it is already, at least in the U.S.)

This weekend I saw a guy apparently picnicking across the road from my house. After a while I went over to see WTF, and turns out he was working for a mapping company (and the company drone was flying overhead, snapping photos). He told me that their maps are accurate to within 1/8th inch.

Or someone will figure they can tromp the pedal ALL the time because the car will take care of it... then when they get to a higher speed zone, the car will speed up inappropriately and run someone else off the road, or slide off the road because 45mph was okay on ice but 65mph is not. Or it will slow when doing so is dangerous (frex, when that truck behind you can't slow down that fast), but the sign said to. Situational awareness is not just the speed limit. It's a continuous series of judgment calls based on the whole damn road and everyone on it.

There are roads in California where the speed limit is different on opposite sides of the street, I shit you not. So on the same street, westbound the speed limit might be 40mph while eastbound it's 25mph. When I asked the highway department about this, I was told it's due to the street being on the boundary of different 'zones'.

No. You make the baseline a point the child won't cross again. That way you don't have to ratchet up; indeed, you'll probably never have to repeat it. Think of the time you burned your finger on the stove... you didn't try that again, did you!

I'm a pro dog trainer, and it's the same way. If a dog bites (eg. egregious misbehavior), and you just tap 'em on the nose, pretty soon they figure out your response wasn't serious, so they try it again... a little harder tap, and they figure out they can handle that just fine too, bite again, and it becomes an arms race. (That's precisely how puppy nipping becomes adult biting.) So instead you deck 'em first time around, so they know with certainty that what they did was Dumb and absolutely won't be tolerated, and they never try it again. It may sound harsh, but it's a lot kinder in the long run -- especially it's psychologically kinder, because you've set the solid boundary that the dog (or child) was probing for, rather than making it a fuzzy thing to be challenged over and over in case it's not for real. And when the boundary is fuzzy you do have to punish over and over, and get harsher as they discover how much they can take, and the boundary never does get established because they learn that if only they can take a little more, it'll move again.

Friend had two kids that were different as night and day. The older boy responded to even mild displeasure -- he always wanted to please and never needed so much as a threat of any punishment. The younger boy was rather more willful, had to have it demonstrated to him that the adult was indeed serious, and didn't believe he'd be punished until he actually got spanked. (Timeout and the like was a waste of air.) Once he'd had that demonstration, so long as he knew the adult would follow through, he was a perfect angel. But if he knew he could game the adult, he'd misbehave however he liked.

Younger boy (who was 3 or 4 at the time) was in the habit of ignoring mom when she called (guess who didn't follow through in that household). One day this happened when he didn't realise I was in the ditch behind their house. Mom called, boy ran the other way, and I came raring up out of the ditch. Boy goes Ooops, the enforcer is here, and hitailed it for mom. After that he always came when called!!

Doesn't seem to bother people to be associated with fsck.

>... don't plant water-intensive crops in a drought zone? Naaa, that would require actual understanding of the situation. As it is, the only thing that will help is all those water-wasters going bankrupt. Reality is merciless.

I know several almond farmers here in the Central Valley.

Contrary to what you and TFA think, they've been engaging in very significant water cutbacks on their crops for years now, testing to see how little water they can get by with needing. I think they're currently at about 10% of the water that they were using a decade ago. How? They have water sensors in the soil, making sure they don't overwater below the root line, that wirelessly report back their findings to the farmer, who can then turn on a very small amount of water as needed to trees that are bone dry. They've also found the trees are a lot more drought tolerant than anyone thought, and can get by with less water than is recommended.

Overall, their water efficiency is about 90% currently, with the remaining 10% waste being hard to get rid of, as its used for things like backwashing dirt out of filters and the like.

Farmers here aren't these naive "water wasters" as you so ignorantly put it, and have a much better "understanding of the situation" than you do.

I vaguely recall that he quit Greenpeace because he wasn't happy with the direction it was taking.

And what he says in TFA actually makes sense, somewhat to my surprise.

I'm a pro dog trainer, specifically retrievers, which need to have good distance vision. I've noticed that if puppies around weaning age don't have a long line of sight available, they never really learn to see distance later on, either. (Incidentally, there once was a bloodline that was infamous for myopia, so there is an inherited component too. Those dogs are not improved by environment.)

I recall a study some years back that found if babies sleep in a lighted room, they are likely to become myopic.

I'm thinkin' there might be a stall point in eye development that can glitch if the eye lacks a certain cycle of stimulation and rest, and the result of this stall is that the eye never develops past the myopia that's normal in infants. (It's certainly normal in puppies from 2 to 4 weeks old; after that they need stimulation.)

The immediate effect I'd predict is more suicides, because the suicidal user who already believes they don't count because no one listens to them now has hard evidence that no one listens to what they have to say -- after all, they're just been silenced by Facebook.