> "Nevertheless, this work challenges alarmist ideas about so-called ‘digital dementia’ and instead suggests that using digital technology can be good for brain health."

That is a very clear claim of causality. Right after the professor stated that they have not demonstrated causality.

I call bad science, or at least bad science communication.

Actually, I find these statistics very easy to read. 100 000 additional cancer cases, every year, most of them avoidable. And the risk of ionising radiation is very well understood.

How much easier do you want it?

> Instead, for some reason, a lot of doctors insist on doing it the other way around. This makes no sense at all to me. We should spend money to upgrade MRI hardware to be the best it can be, and stop using these ionizing-radiation-spewing abominations faster than 1950s shoe salesmen did.

That is exactly how I see it, but as you said, it is not happening. And yes, there are some applications where CT is certainly better (or where an MRI is disqualified because of implants), but you would assume those to be rare.

> How would it being cheaper factor into it from the caregiver's side? Isn't it more a question of insurances pressuring towards less costly procedures?

CT is covered by insurance, MRI is not. An MRI tends to be about 3 to 5 more expensive.

"Would you like to pay out of pocket?"

> I would guess they calculated that the additional cancers are cheaper than putting them all in MRIs instead.

Not at all, but the cancers is "somebody else's" problem.

> One guess is that it is a matter of a known risk in the present vs. a theoretical/statistical threat in the future.

Maybe, but I think something different is at play. There is a legal risk of not doing imaging, in case something might be present that is not quite clear through the symptoms. Doing a CT scan mitigates that legal risk, because "everything has been done". There seems to be little legal risk in doing a CT scan, even if it has a significant chance of causing cancer (probably because the risk is diffuse, and the causality hard to prove, as you said).

> but it was prescribed because the risks are balanced by the benefits.

I very much doubt that, at least if you talk about medical risk. For the legal risk, yes, that seems to be the main reason.

And your argument assumes that people act rationally. Have you looked around recently? Where do you get that faith in humanity?:-)

> 93 million CT examinations were carried out in 2023

So the average person gets a CT scan every three years? Over 20 in their lifetime? That is crazy - the risk of a CT scan is pretty well understood, so why do we use it like candy?

European countries do far fewer CT scans, with better health outcomes, although the numbers are rising, too.

Sounds like two sides to me. Not equal sides, but still two sides.

This.

But Zuckerberg has "corrected" the facts.

... is justice denied. I have no idea why it took so long, but essentially, nobody responsible for this will ever feel any consequences.

They should just get rid of Outlook and give Teams an integrated message reader - chat and email and whatnot.

Outlook is a dumpster fire, has always been, will always be.

Teams, for all its flaws, at least tries to make things easier to use.

Facebook has turned into a complete cesspit. Who would pay for that?

Especially metric time.

10 days per week.
10 hours per day.
100 minutes per hour.

That's going to sort things!

When Google rolled out text ads, while everybody else had blinking banners and pop-up nuisance, that was revolutionary. And it made sense to integrate ads and search.

Nowadays, they are just another ad company, but with worse conditions than the competition. The only thing that sets them apart is their appetite for data, which is only rivalled by the meta. The integration of ads and search has become a problem.

And I am surprised that the DOJ even attempts to break this up, but I certainly wish them success.

... and we are all out of ideas.

Creating enough childcare places? No, hasn't happened.

Free healthcare for children? No.

Mandatory parental leave? No.

Help with insane housing cost? Not really. But you can get a few free diapers.

Honest, it looks to me as if Japan does not want to solve the problem.

Now that is a very high voltage for Lithium Ion batteries. Usually, you charge to 4.25V. Maybe 4.35V, if you have an extra high capacity battery, but that always results in reduced battery life. At those high voltages, reactions happen that are not great for the chemisty, and the battery efficiency also suffers.

My guess is that 4.44V is just a bit too much, and it may risk a battery fire in the wrong circumstances.