(Also, the infrastructure - plumbing, electricity, roads, etc, don't usually build themselves for free)
How was it decided to attribute the lower performance to the medicine instead of the underlying condition?
I have taken a wide range of antidepressants, anti-psychotics and anti-anxiety related medication over the years. Their side effects can indeed interfere with my work, but when the underlying condition interferes with my work more, I'll use them, as overall I have an improvement, however I'm still performing under less than ideal conditions.
Should you make antidepressants illegal, because they can/might/correlate to detract from ability to concentrate? (Actually perhaps we should, but the efficacy of mental health drugs is a whole other debate), or should you recognise that those workers taking them are combatting bigger issues than their side effects?
Regardless, sounds to me like a pretty poor study, but yeah, i didn't read the full article, so feel free to slam me if there's something that addresses this.
Just read enough of the article to see that those who were given access to marijuana were a cultural selection, not a medical or random selection, but I could use those same numbers to argue that Dutch, German & Belgians tend to like to smoke more than do school work, or that they have a higher incidence of physical/mental issues that marijuana alleviates, that they generally consider worth the minor side effects, or so on.
TLDR: Bad study is bad.
It gives every narcissistic prick a global megaphone.
Megaphones mean people hear you whether they want to or not (within the vicinity - specified as 'global'). This is more or less exactly 'like' giving him his own global cable channel, amongst who knows how many others? Millions? - no one is forced to watch it. With a megaphone the implication is that you hear it whether you want to or not, and he can't force anyone to watch his streams, so no. not a global megaphone. More of a global telephone number with a party line, except it can only receive calls, not make them...
As soon as the tech for cameras to take 'x-ray' images is available to appear in phones, manufacturers will be scrambling over each other to get it in.
It will be marketed for everything aside for the x-ray imaging, and that ability will not be implemented, so they'll be 'OK'.
Hackers will immediately make the functionality available to the public, the cat will be out of the bag, and it'll just become another fact of the world, that you can't presume to hide your physical form if you go out in public (although a market will open for special material clothing in order to do so if you can afford it - perhaps even become the solution) or perhaps the world will in a generation or two get accustomed to the new norm and stop caring - the 'european' attitude will become the norm.
I hope it happens in my lifetime, will be terribly entertaining to watch it unfold.
Also curious as to that patent and how it bounces around.
The problem is that the spectroscopic techniques capable amenable to implemention on a small device can only give some general information about a material or mixture. This may be enough to select one option from a narrow set of possibilities (eg: is that drain pipe PVC or ABS plastic?). However, it is not going to identify the presence of a toxin in a bowl of soup or tell you that your gold watch is only gold-plated.
I fully expect one of the first uses would to have a database of common toxins and their signatures, and would indeed be able to detect a sufficient sample, the real question will be sensitivity, which may limit the number that can be usefully detected until the technology is inevitably improved. And once this is in the hands of the public and accessible to develop this is the sort of thing that I expect to make some quick initial advances as others build better databases once there's a need for them, and work out better algorithms of detection and data processing for ever more accurate results...
You would eat a mushroom just because you phone says its safe?
I might take the time to further investigate a mushroom if my phone said it was safe, and to ignore a mushroom if my phone says it is unsafe, all depending on how accurate I found my phone to be. Only a fool would trust a tool further than it's proven reliability.
So the question is, "Will it detect saline or silicone under flesh?"
My guess is it won't be long after this tech is made available to the public that some hackers will write a filter to give us the x-ray goggles I read about it the back of old comic books, for real...
(Note: I mean hackers in the oldschool use of the term)
I'm not a light expert by any stretch, but from what I understand there are wavelengths of light that the human eye cannot see (but potentially these new cameras could; they already see infrared) that can penetrate substances that human-visible light cannot.
This will then bring up a whole new slew of privacy issues.... and clothing marketing opportunities
"From 3ft away
If you increase the distance from the display, the resolution requirement lowers, not raises, so if 4k is good on 19" at 2ft, then perhaps roughly 2/3 of that resolution would match the capabilities of the same eyes at 3ft. i.e. less, not more. If the display size increased, however, not the distance, or if the distance shortened, then yes, larger resolution would be required to maintain viewing quality.
Resolution is relevant for application developers and video hardware makers, and PPI far less so to them, and there are a fair few developers on
Most of the discussion here seems to be from the consumer position, however, so for that, PPI is key.
I personally do often call it a 'mobile phone' as a compromise when speaking to my American friends, however.
(I lived a while in the USA, and I think between work and friends, I talk to Americans more than Aussies, most days)
Link to Original Source
I do think it's still entirely possible for some other factor like this to be relevant, well worth considering, or at least keeping in mind.
I feel like there's truth to both.
No doubt, if they managed to instead get accurate numbers that removed inaccuracies and noise and narrowed down on a more accurate reading, I expect the variance would be more than that 15%.
Of course, it could also be less, don't know for sure till you figure that superior study out, but for the data at hand, they're able to find some interesting correlation.
I definitely do think there's room for improvement, and, based on this study, reason to be hopeful to find more valuable information in further studies.
Even basic results aren't automatically garbage, however, but it probably takes a scientific mind to see it that way.