I think you are correct that the headline is wrong because Nintendo is not asking to be refunded $200 billion, but to be precise the number doesn't seem to be the compensation sought by all the companies that are suing either.
Nintendo is the only plaintiff in this specific suit so joined in this article does not mean they are all plaintiffs in one suit, just that they have all filed suits.
The Nintendo complaint specifically mentions $200 billion, but I think this is just supposed to be the rough amount the us government collected in total based on the tariffs that the supreme court found to be illegal from all companies/countries (as background information), not what Nintendo or any other specific companies that are suing are requesting be refunded.
> Better air quality is one of the best (and cheapest) ways to improve overall health.[1]
While I think that the things the person lists on that site are good precautions (although I think not using an ultrasonic humidifier would be better stated as only using distilled water with ultrasonic humidifiers), I think that saying that doing these things is "is one of the best (and cheapest) ways to improve overall health" is too strong, because while there are lots of studies showing population level correlations between pm2.5 particles and health problems, I don't think there is currently evidence specifically showing that things like using air purifiers actually improve health.
>I think not using an ultrasonic humidifier would be better stated as only using distilled water with ultrasonic humidifiers
That's a common misconception. They still atomize bacteria from the tank because nobody ever cleans & sterilizes their dehumidifier tank often enough. Distilled water users still report high indoor particle counts when it runs, which is how you know it's an ineffective prevention.
The cost of distilled water every year (even making it at home) means ultrasonic humidifiers are the most expensive option too.
>while there are lots of studies showing population level correlations between pm2.5 particles and health problems, I don't think there is currently evidence specifically showing that things like using air purifiers actually improve health.
Air purifiers reduce PM2.5 concentration, so if PM2.5 is bad for health then air purifiers are good for health.
This is like "there's no evidence parachutes improve survival after jumping from a plane."
> Air purifiers reduce PM2.5 concentration, so if PM2.5 is bad for health then air purifiers are good for health.
> This is like "there's no evidence parachutes improve survival after jumping from a plane."
A proposed intervention like air purifiers that have no direct evidence but are plausible because they reduce something that has been shown to be correlated with negative long term health outcomes is the opposite of something like parachutes that we directly know work.
This is a completely bizarre comparison and it's like saying that skepticism of an Alzheimer's drug targeting amyloid plaques is like doubting parachutes work because we know that amyloid plaques are correlated with Alzheimer's.
> reduce something that has been shown to be correlated with negative long term health outcomes
Are you suggesting the link isn't causal? Because your argument only makes sense if you think air pollution particles aren't actually the cause of lung damage, which is the opposite of the scientific consensus.
The fact that you have to bring up amyloid plaques is especially a red flag, since this is famously a rare example of the failure of scientific consensus.
The point is that you can't know if an intervention works until you actually test it. There are tons of possibilities, including that some pm2.5 particles cause lung damage and some don't, in which case overall pm2.5 exposure would be correlated to negative health effects but using an air filter to reduce dust in your home might have little or no health benefit. We don't know yet.
Generally avoiding pm2.5 particles is a reasonable precaution but you can't say that things like air filters are actually the most effective health intervention someone can do until you test that experimentally. That's simply not how stuff like this works. There are virtually infinite health interventions that seem plausible but don't actually work when tested.
As with a treatment for alzheimer's disease, cancer, or heart disease, you can't simply say that X is correlated with disease, an intervention Y reduces X, so therefore Y must have positive health effects without actually testing Y.
It not the original title but I'm not sure it's "misleading"
> Within weeks, Binance fired or suspended at least four employees involved in the investigation, according to the documents and three people with knowledge of the situation. The company cited issues such as “violations of company protocol” related to the handling of client data.
That page is a few years old and it's much less the case now, which seems to disprove most of the broad cultural conclusions people are trying to draw based on it.
> California governor’s office candidate Matt Mahan told me about the Third Grade Reading Gate when I first met him last year. It’s how I knew he was legit and focused on the right things.
Exercise, therapy, and antidepressants have all been shown to have similar effect sizes for depression. It seems like some people take that to mean that therapy and antidepressants are pointless but unless there's some reason to think that the effects are mutually exclusive, a more reasonable interpretation is probably that it's good to try to do all of these things if possible if you are depressed.
And while they affect a similar percentage of people, they don't necessarily affect the same individuals. Same for therapy modalities, which often show similar efficacy in studies, but different efficacy for any given person.
So you've got to try different things and figure out what works for you.
> Same for therapy modalities, which often show similar efficacy in studies, but different efficacy for any given person.
It's even more complicated than that - you can probably click well and succeed with one therapist and get a completely ineffective treatment by another therapist and I'm not sure we even understand why that well (saying one therapist is better than the other is not always true).
With it being the way it is , I think A.I actually could be another tool for people to try; not currently but once it improves enough with memory and reliability (I know many people are gonna downvote this but what's your alternative?).
The only constant in effective therapy is that the client in good faith wants to make a change in their life/outlook. The therapy modalities are all tactics but the strategy remains the same
The problem is that people who are depressed often don't have the energy to change their lifestyle to start exercise, which requires significant effort.
That's why psychiatrists will suggest antidepressants or Electroconvulsive therapy (in extreme cases of depression) because clients are unable to help themselves.
Happens for physical heath too. I jumpstarted progress with GLP-1 and Statins and now I probably don't need them because I enjoy exercising and eating well.
Although exercise is the only one of those three that anyone can do immediately, right now, for free. There are barriers to obtaining therapy and medication which may be insurmountable for many.
Taking the antidepressant has become the dominant go to approach as it is more commercially profitable for the seller and easier to commit to for the taker.
i fully agree, but here's an advice for next time: HN (specifically americans, anglos too but not as much) is VERY pro medication. any suggestion they're taking too much pills will be downvoted
it's easier to just let them have their soma and say nothing
Notice that that Wikipedia page links to a disambiguation page which links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIKINI_state which may be more familiar to people in the UK than the meaning you are thinking of
That’s not actually feasible. It’s cost prohibitive to refactor all the shared dorms and/or tear down and rebuild a significant fraction of on campus spaces.
I think you are correct that the headline is wrong because Nintendo is not asking to be refunded $200 billion, but to be precise the number doesn't seem to be the compensation sought by all the companies that are suing either.
Nintendo is the only plaintiff in this specific suit so joined in this article does not mean they are all plaintiffs in one suit, just that they have all filed suits.
The Nintendo complaint specifically mentions $200 billion, but I think this is just supposed to be the rough amount the us government collected in total based on the tariffs that the supreme court found to be illegal from all companies/countries (as background information), not what Nintendo or any other specific companies that are suing are requesting be refunded.
reply