Nope. It does not say that your best bet is to learn as a child. In fact I would say that the later learning not working points the real effect:

Selection for people with better brains.

It strongly implies that learning languages does nothing, but that those lucky enough to be born into a household where learning languages as a child is common or easier are also lucky enough to have less deterioration later in life.

This implies that good parents that provide a stable home life when the child is young, give good nutrition, establish strong learning habits end up having less deterioration.

To see if the learning languages had any effect your would most likely need siblings studies where one child learned two+ languages and the other learned only one.

That data would indicate what you and the reporters are implying, but it does not exist in this study.

One of the many problems in science is the mistaken belief that correlation = causation.

That is, people the fact that more men then women are CEO's does not indicate men are better at business, instead it indicates that men are favored by the people that select CEOs.

Here are several other possible explanations for the survey results:

1) Intelligent people are both more likely to learn multiple languages and more likely to age better because they take better care of their brain, or it could be that the same trait that makes them smarter also protects their brain. I.E. Smarter people get less brain deterioration and smarter people learn more languages.

2) The brain's very first bits of degradation occurs at a very young age (before 30) and that same degradation makes learning new languages unpleasant and/or more difficult. I.E. later brain deterioration prevents you from learning languages at an early age.

I am not saying these are true, I am saying the idea deciding to learn a language will protect your brain is NOT supported by the data, at least not anymore than my 2 suggestions.

I hope you are being sarcastic. it was 30% of children off the Social Media, NOT 30% have a positive effect. Children off social media was the method, not the reason for the law.

The desired positive effect was to protect the children from 'cyberbullying', and to disrupt child pornography.

This article had no results listed. They did not mention any reduction in cyber bullying nor any reduction in child pornography.

Interesting hypothesis (not theory, theory = proven), lets test it out.
Internet search results: ( https://streamlinedai.app/blog... )
2% of people have a PHD.

Hm, that sounds low, not high. Especially as PHDs are not just for academia.
Internets search results ( https://academiainsider.com/wh... )
20% of people with a PHD stay in Academia.

Sorry, the real world seems to disprove your hypothesis. PhD's are not 'too common', nor do they stay in Academia. They go out into the real world and use their knowledge to change the world. Hopefully for the better.

Surprise surprise.

The foolish attempt to save the children by taking away everyone's privacy and the children's freedom is thwarted by the children subverting their laws.

If you want to save the children, do not try to save them, instead protect us ALL by changing the algorithms to push people toward truth rather than the shocking.

This is not news. It is merely the continuation of a very long story.

I know of no battery chemistry that excels at 100% charge. If I were the battery makers, I would set it up as battery can be charged to 125% with that number being equal to what we call 100% now. The range is already much less important than the lifetime of the battery, especially considering that it takes far longer to get a battery that last 20% than it does to get the first 30%.

My understanding is that the best hybrid vehicles try to keep the battery charged at between 45% to 60%. That has enough power to give the ICE the extra boost necessary for higher speed maneuvers such as passing, and/or low speed travel when the ICE is turned off. But at normal speeds it lets the ICE work at it's high efficiency low rpm range without even bothering to charge the battery.

Most large American (and other countries with reasonable tax rates) corporations at least consider moving to Ireland or similar countries to lesson tax burden. This is hard to stop.

You could declaring that profit margins in the low tax nation is the same margin for all income earned in the US. That is if you declare a profit margin of 24% in Ireland than 24% of all money leaving the US is considered profit and taxable at American rates. This is something that would involve a lot of arguments and I could see accountants getting paid even more to negate this trick.

Another way to do it is to declare that any American owning such corporations must pay 2% (or a similar number) of the value they own as a yearly tax. Example: if Bill Gates owns 100 billion in Microsoft stock, then he must pay 2 billion in taxes yearly for owning it. This kind of thing is harder to argue with, particularly for public corporations as their value is determined by the market.

Frankly, the 2nd method is far superior in my mind. A lot of the abusive practices the wealthy use to evade taxes are caused by us taxing 'profits' rather than net worth. Profits are easy to hide, net worth less so.

The US life expectancy now is about 79. England is 81. The world's highest is about 86 (either Monaco or Hong Kong), but they have the advantage of being a micro city state. If you ignore those and look at countries that actually have rural areas, then it drops to about 84 (Japan, Switzerland, S Korea, depending on the year).

The US is about #55 out of 200 odd countries. Not bad, but nothing to brag about.

In my personal opinion, the US's life expectancy being lower than England is proof positive our health care system needs a lot of work. Our culture is relatively similar, it's not about a better diet.

I have high standards, I used massive exaggerations indicating the worst of the worst, along the lines you implied.

What you are describing is a possibility. But it doesn't have to be that way. Government can work.

It requires:
1) a large enough country so that you get some smart, ethical people on both sides.
2) People willing to compromise on some issues
3) A free press and honest media that care more about the truth than making money (to investigate the unethical people and get the out of politics).

I do not about your country but up until fairly recently the USA had that. It is one of the reasons why we were so successful for a century.

Major evidence of this was Richard Nixon being told by members of his own party they would impeach him and then he resigned.

Compared to the new America where we had only 10 out of 53 (less than 20%) of Republicans willing to impeach Trump in 2019.

We are failing, but it does not have to be that way.

It was a joke. Some people have no sense of humor.

What kind of idiot thinks that lying down is better than sitting when it comes to exercise.

Standard lie told by the far right.

The issues are simple.
The left wants to spend our money on everything (gluttony)
The right wants to not spend the money on anything (greed).

The difference is simple the people greedy should never be trusted in charge of the money they will always steal it for themselves and their friends.

The gluttonous can be trusted as while they will spend the money like water, they will spend it on EVERYONE rather than stealing it for themselves.

Finally, the gluttonous have a natural limit, people object to raising taxes. But it is much harder to object to cutting taxes.

This is why I watch TV while lying down on the couch rather than sitting up.

It used to be that the GOP were capitalists, bad capitalists but capitalists notherless. But that has ceased.

The biggest sign was the "no self repair contracts". That is the most anti-capitalist thing I ever heard of. If you buy it, you can do what you want with it, including not just repairing it, but ripping it in half and sticking extra seats in the middle. Yeah, I want to see a stretch John Deere. tractor.