Not quite true - we're down to around 14 days with the latest generation of tests.
The ideal would be a rapid 'fever' panel that tests for all the viruses we currently pay a ton of money for. This sort of test could pick up early-stage HIV which, if symptomatic, don't feel much different from a cold/flu.
To the moderators, the title would be more accurate with 'fMRI' as opposed to 'MRI'. The latter is typically used to examine structural brain elements, whereas fMRI is thought to correlate with brain activity and, by extension, thought.
Confusing the two would lead to the more unusual conclusion that suicidal ideation is associated with abnormal brain connectivity, while the authors are instead focusing on neuronal activity.
Specifically fMRI measures blood flow across the brain (the BOLD response) which is correlated with neuron activity. It has good spatial resolution but poor temporal resolution [0], compared to EEG which gives you good temporal resolution but poor spatial resolution.
[0] i.e. you know with precision where in the brain activity occurred, but less precisely when it occurred in time
I didn't even really realize I had these confused until you pointed it out. This makes a lot more sense and helps me understand the results. At first I was confused at how brain structure analysis predicted suicidal tendencies/thoughts.
It takes a very small amount of research to note how often Google visited the White House, how much money Google invested in political campaigns over the last number of years, and how FTC staff found more than adequate reason for an antitrust investigation of Google until the White House ordered it dropped. Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google's board, was considered part of Hillary Clinton's campaign staff and personally funded the company that provided a lot of the Clinton campaign's web dev.
(Hopefully this is enough specifics for you to find any sources that may be of interest to you.)
I think this is a pretty bold claim and would appreciate the sources you found probative.
If the statements you offer constitute sufficient evidence for you, I would say that numerous companies and industries have more contact with our lawmakers than what you have described.
'Google executives set foot in the Obama White House more often than those of any other corporation – its head lobbyist visited 128 times. Google spread its money across Washington with joyous ecumenicism. Google spent about $17m on influence peddlers of both partisan varietals. By one count, Google poured more into its DC apparatus than any other public company.'
As I stated, I was providing you with more detailed statements for you to do your own research. My comment was intended as a starting point, not a bible on the topic.
Your parents' story is very impressive, but I think it highlights some aspects of privilege I have also encountered:
- The people who are able to emigrate from a poor/devastated country are generally the educated and former middle class
- Airfare is expensive, and in real terms was more expensive in the past; two tickets across the Atlantic probably represent more than most humans will ever make in their lives
- Some people are being rounded up/denied the right to enter the country on their visas. Even having the chance to roll the dice on life in the US is a huge advantage
I could go on.
I think it's uncomfortable to think of ourselves as anything but eminently worthy/self-reliant but this doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. I say this as the child of immigrants who now are worth millions but used to work security, after arriving with $100 in their pockets.
You're right in the sense that we're all privileged in comparison to, say, rural Kenyans. But that's not what the original article was arguing. I feel that you're attacking a straw man here.
I think it’s unfair to discounts papers in a foreign field to one’s own as ‘minimum publishable unit’ - often the novelty and importance of a finding requires some background, which the new, longer narrative abstracts in Science are trying to provide.
But the "news" part of Science is very good, and has insightful coverage of science activities. In comparison with the rest of the magazine, the published research in Science was...meh.
It's not false that a long press on a non-3D touch device opens the same box as using 3D touch on a device that supports it.
However, after all the feedback here I did some testing and it appears the GP was wrong: The submenu obtained by 3D touch/long-press doesn't actually turn WiFi off. My apologies for repeating his claim without backing it up.
This is very controversial - in short, there is no national recommendation for mammogram screening to start at 40 years.
Multiple professional organizations disagree (see below). For the societies that recommend age 45, they suggest that concerned women speak with their doctor regarding earlier screening.
Importantly, note that screening looks for signs of a disease in asymptomatic, normal-risk individuals. The presence of a family history or a lump/mass moves one from the category of screening into that of diagnosis.
The ideal would be a rapid 'fever' panel that tests for all the viruses we currently pay a ton of money for. This sort of test could pick up early-stage HIV which, if symptomatic, don't feel much different from a cold/flu.
[1] - https://www.aafp.org/afp/2014/0215/afp20140215p265-f1.gif