It no longer does this because now your comment is the only result for the query. Before, it could not find a single result, said as much, and gave you the wikipedia page that included the age. What's wrong with that, again?
2,230 karma · joined August 10, 2016
Also, at least for me, Google does exactly what you describe at the right approach.
Getting this wrong is probably why people think we need more than definitive assertions from people operating from subjective impression.
Changing a letter in the query, it says, right at the top:
Showing results for "but when therefore is an adverb"
No results found for "but when therefore is tan adverb"Here, the reporting of this factoid almost certainly means there was no significant change in actual suicides, or in attempted suicides of the population at large. So both may well be true.
No, you didn’t. That sort of effect does happen with antipsychotics. The effects of antidepressants are as different from those as Aspirin.
You’re starting from a very specific worldview—the puritanical tradition where those upholding a certain set of virtues (industriousness, tolerance to pain, etc) will be richly rewarded (on earth or later) and, conversely, any suffering can be traced back to individual faults.
That mindset cannot survive contact with even trace amounts of actual data where, time and time again, medication does make a difference, although that difference remains frustratingly smaller than for other diseases. But it isn’t ‘numbing” of “fake” any more than antibiotics are.
You seem to believe antidepressants are like uppers or downers where you chuck a handful and ten minutes later you feel a wave of happiness roll over you. Here’s a secret: take a few of those pills and you will feel… absolutely nothing. Anti-depressants do not produce a “high” in any sense of the word. Changes in mood take months to appear and are usually not even recognized by the patient. It’s their friends who tend to notice it first.
Copyright notices are neither necessary nor sufficient to establish copyright. Your example also does not qualify for copyright because, frankly, it isn’t very creative.
If you manage to change the actual functioning of the organism, you can potentially get it protected with a patent. See Monsanto for examples. Human life, however, is considered somewhat sacrosanct by Catholics, liberals, and everyone in between. I believe there’s some UN treaty banning patents on human life.
That opportunity also exists for any insider with actual knowledge. None of them coming forward is a pretty good indication it’s bullshit.
And who, exactly, is the seller here? Is it the publishing company? In that case they would seem to be underreporting their income, which is a crime. Trump could have ended the NYT if he had managed to substantiate the charge.
Or is it individual reporters? In that case, the publisher is the largest single victim of this dynamic, since they aren’t getting any cash but carry all the risk. They would have an interest to stop it and obviously a rather good position to do so.
I can't think of any other measure that gets even close. The effects of restaurant closures can be mitigated by throwing money at the problem. If you have to stay home and take care of children, your career will suffer even if you are compensated for lost income.
There really isn't an easy solution to it. Maybe getting creative on the local level would help: taking turns among a (small) group of parents, or hiring a single person to take care of maybe 5 or 6 kids. Maybe getting the older children to watch the younger ones, etc. But everything comes with its own drawbacks, usually by reintroducing pathways to spread.
One measure that seems to be missing, and that I cannot find fault with right now, is changing structures to keep classes fixed, possibly with only a single teacher (per week?). For younger children, it's quite possible for, say an English teacher to also teach biology. Having fixed classes is also common in many countries. It means you can't accomodate electives, of course.
And the (undisputed) fact that Asperger was quite the Nazi should, just by itself, disqualify the term. OPs comment linking the dual terms to the similar binary classification into useful/useless human beings goes even further by showing that usage of the term doesn’t just glorify someone who doesn’t deserve it, but shows how that practice derives from and continues the namesake’s hateful ideology.
(note: "levelized" costs are total costs divided by total real-world production, so it's already adjusted for "the time the sun doesn't shine" etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_energy
It's as close as one can get, with about 200m missing because, I guess, the driver decided nobody would care about the rest of this godforsaken industrial area. Or they got a call at exactly that moment that Google would stop gathering photos to spite the criticism of data protection advocates that was annoying them at the time.
So “asylum seekers” or “refugee” would be better, since I agree that they are not undocumented, either.
All I can think of is that using this data to judge biases could be defeated by a simple search-and-replace if anyone wanted to. But I doubt publishers cate enough about obscure papers calling them conservative to change their language. (If they do stop calling all foreigners “illegal aliens”, that’s would actually be quite the feat for a lowly department of semantics)
I don’t know if they want proof of effectiveness again, or are specifically looking at risk (which would not be impacted by the above).
If guess the risk of death is so low among children, you need far more data to exclude a risk from vaccination at that (small) magnitude. Think of helmets, and how they are exactly as comfortable to wear in a car as they are on a motorcycle.
I’m also not entirely sure how good surveillance is for the flu? I could imagine it being recorded as “pneumonia” or “respiratory arrest”, especially when it affects poorer people, or those not admitted to hospitals.
(please not that the two issues above would pull any conclusion into opposite directions, then reflect on the relative amounts of hate and love, respectively, before deciding that I must be wrong because disagree)
This very article is titled “experts say booster shots not needed”. Less frustrated people are statistically more likely to get that this means the essential benefits of vaccination have not (or not yet) deteriorated significantly.
As to with data from all age groups, they do so for both the value and the comparison. If you feel the need to split each population into subgroups, you would need continue doing so once you find, for example, what differs from the 20-year old that died vs the one that didn’t. In the end, each person would have their own group, because they all differ. But try doing any comparisons, then.