I came here to say exactly this. I found this article[0] here a few months ago on HN and it dramatically changed my life for the better. I had always thought I was just "easily distracted" and a "natural procrastinator", when in reality I actually had ADHD.
Now that I am medicated and it is mind-blowing how my life has changed. I can hold more than one thought in my head at a time, I can get back on track to what I was doing before without forgetting what I was doing, I don't sleep in until 10am anymore and I don't binge eat anymore. Consequently my self-esteem has improved dramatically too.
This article [0] suggests that false negative results will not be as problematic if we manage to start screening on a population level.
Inaccuracy of up to 15% could still keep the viral R0 under 1.0 (the critical value for eliminating an epidemic).
From the article:
> "False negative rates up to 15% could be tolerated if 80% comply with testing, and false positives can be almost arbitrarily high when a high fraction of the population is already effectively quarantined"
Shouldn't we optimize for a higher number of false positives? In the end, sending someone in quarantine for 2 weeks without them being infected is probably less dangerous than a false negative. So making tests overly sensitive would seem more applicable to me here.
No, we should optimize for a balance between the two.
For example a 150,000 batch of rapid tests China recently sent to Czechia had 80% error rates. You don't want to be mass quarantining people because of such terrible testing supplies.
Although the rest of what you say is true, it's actually a myth[0] that all Tasmanian Aboriginals were killed off (something that Tasmanian Aboriginals find frustrating in itself).
As an alternative to "2nd/3rd" or "developing" countries, I really like the "Four Levels of Global Income" model[0] that Hans Rosling put forth in his book Factfulness[1] (a must-read IMO).
It gives a much clearer perspective on how people live (and as you mentioned, how similarly people live across the world amongst the same income levels)
They produce much less waste, are much less messy (almost never leak), and don't need to be changed as often (once every 6 - 12 hours and without the TSS risks that tampons have).
It's better to use running water to wash them out, but simply wiping them with tissue paper can work too (albeit a little messily), if water is scarce.
A downside that I've read about however is that just like with tampons, some cultures consider inserting anything into the vagina as losing your virginity so using them may be considered taboo.
True. On your last point, I think that actually makes pads a more significant invention over tampons and menstrual cups, because it allowed women in very conservative cultures where losing your virginity before marriage is considered taboo, to still able to go about their normal daily actives during periods. Interesting me and friends from elementary school in China were never taught to use tampons, tampons and menstrual cups didn't become a thing until very recently.
Thank you for linking that report, very interesting.
I also read through the article[0] that the report linked. I think a significant factor in the difference in risk is how much contact tampons are making with the vaginal canal vs menstrual cups; the article mentions that the risk is higher if the cup is allowed to overflow (and the toxins from within the cup make contact with the vaginal canal).
So I suppose that even though the cup can be left inside for longer than a tampon can, that (as advised) it should definitely not be left inside for longer than necessary.
I usually use the analogy that a Swede pronouncing "cheap" as "sheep" is equivalent to English speakers pronouncing "skjuta" as "tjuta".
As a native English speaker, it took me a while to hear the difference between Swedish "tj" and "sj" (at least the way it's pronounced in Northern Swedish, like "schhh").
Masculine and feminine have merged into 'common'/'utrum', used mostly for animate objects as pointed out by a sibling comment, although not all animate objects (e.g. barn, lejon).
Neuter has stayed as is.
There are, however, remnants of the masculine/feminine distinction left: e.g. klockan is ofter referred to as feminine (hon), and the "-e" in "storebror" (as opposed to "-a" which is used for utrum today and feminine in the past).
There are, however, remnants of the masculine/feminine distinction left: e.g. klockan is ofter referred to as feminine (hon), and the "-e" in "storebror" (as opposed to "-a" which is used for utrum today and feminine in the past).
The -e/-a ending is still in common use not only in constructions like "storebror" but in general in adjectives pointing to a female or male person ("den fule mannen", "den fula kvinnan") although this usage is falling out of favour a bit ("den fula mannen" would not generally sound wrong to most modern speakers)
Another interesting remnant of old Norse that still lingers in modern Swedish is the accusative case ending -s in expressions like "till fjälls", "till skogs", "till sjöss", "till sängs" etc.
The 'wh' sound /ʍ/ isn't the same as the Swedish 'sj' sound /ɧ/, but depending on the realisation (like how it's pronounced Stockholm) it can sound fairly similar. The 'sj' sound is more fricative.
Now that I am medicated and it is mind-blowing how my life has changed. I can hold more than one thought in my head at a time, I can get back on track to what I was doing before without forgetting what I was doing, I don't sleep in until 10am anymore and I don't binge eat anymore. Consequently my self-esteem has improved dramatically too.
[0] https://gekk.info/articles/adhd.html