The company won't win a lawsuit most likely, but for the vast majority of these, the people on the other end do not have the resources to bring it to court or to fight it.

And they can use the TOS to harass the user into not leaving the contract, or to levy fines or fess which the user doesn't have resources to fight in court.

It's a joke at this point: "Well, pretty sure I just sacrificed our firstborn child, but we're all set up with cable now, babe."

These TOS should be illegal. It's impossible to read, a great deal of it seems legally dubious, and it's outrageous that I should be asked to give up my basic rights as a consumer in order to use a service that is required for my participation in society. In my state, without Internet, it's difficult to update voter registration, get a driver's license, register for school, etc.

And yet, the companies we have to sign up with to get Internet can demand pretty much any contract they want.

I'm glad someone is studying the implications and I hope it is reflected in future public policy.

Those are pretty big effect sizes over a population.

5.6 ml/kg/min improvement in V02 Max

1.5 inches off the waist

2.9% fewer percentage points in body fat

"after all, the differences aren’t that big."

I bet a lot of doctors would love to see those differences in their patients!

Maybe it makes sense when you think about it but I'm not quite there yet. I should have studied harder in high school biology I guess.

I only read the summary but this is certainly one of the more original theories I have seen on this subreddit.

I have read a lot of weird stuff on mommy boards and yet I have never once heard anyone suggest anything like this:

"The high prevalence of IBS symptoms among patients with joint hypermobility offers a model for how lax mesentery can affect the structure and function of the GI tract and raises questions about whether some people with IBS may have suboptimally constructed suspension systems that remain undiagnosed. Separately, there is a high overlap between joint hypermobility and POTS, another gravity intolerance syndrome linked to IBS that we will discuss later."

It's a nice break from the microbiome stuff at least.

1. They certainly do cite the reason they consider it bad:

Gunn JK, Rosales CB, Center KE, Nuñez A, Gibson SJ, Christ C, Ehiri JE. Prenatal exposure to cannabis and maternal and child health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2016 Apr 1;6:e009986. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009986. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]

2. Studying the impacts of public policy on public health outcomes and establishing causal relationships is not "pointless."

What can be a low-risk fun activity for a grown, 100+ pound adult may very well have serious, lifelong consequences for a tiny pre-human the size of a thumb. It's too bad that people approach weed as some kind of black and white moral imperative instead of a calculated risk.

I'm so sorry. I hope you are able to get health care for the problems you are facing.

"Wolffia globosa (duckweed strain) plant green shake (100 g frozen cubes/day)"

:P

I wonder if they just didn't eat the duckweed globosa "shake" and therefore lost weight due to reduced calorie intake.

Based on my experience in industry:

- People don't have great reading skills

- Critical thinking is rare (many people who make it into advanced fields do so by following instructions, not by questioning assumptions)

- Groupthink is common, especially in academia. One person suggests a study, gets approval and sponsorship, and nobody can question it from then on.

Who am I to argue with Michael Hutchence, but I think the fame and achievement of that is more what Freud would have identified as the success of concern in his case. Not just being extremely talented.

I don't think the researchers understood what Freud was talking about at all. Their test cohort was not at all comparable to the examples given in the summary.

If you read his examples, he wasn't talking about lack of health of successful people, but the let-down he observed in some individuals after they achieved a particularly arduous goal. Because of how we use the word "success" nowadays, I wonder if a better translation of what he said would be "wrecked by achieving a goal".

I seem to be missing something. It doesn't look like they tested anything close to his theory at all. For the record, I'm not a fan of Freud, nor do I have any opinion about whether his wrecked by success theory is true, but Freud seems to believe that people who work exceptionally hard to achieve a goal fall into depression and a bad mental state after achieving that goal.

But in the study, it seems to suggest that they tested how healthy particularly talented people are based on a much broader definition of success, not the achievement of a specific goal.

"Freud gave several examples to illustrate his claim: A woman falling to mental illness after succeeding in a long struggle to become the legal wife of her partner; an academic who struggled for many years to take his mentor’s post after mentor’s retirement, only to lose confidence in own abilities and fall to depression after achieving this goal."

"To test for the existence of the “wrecked-by-success” phenomenon, Harrison J. Kell and his colleagues conducted two studies. In the first study they analyzed data on the three most talented cohorts from the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth..

The aim of the second study was to test the findings of the first study on a group consisting of 714 elite STEM doctoral students in 1992, with equal numbers of men and women...

In both studies, researchers asked participants about their income and to complete assessments of their physical and mental health conditions, psychological adjustment and health, attitude towards aging, relationships and family, and health behaviors (sleep, alcohol use, smoking and exercise). Participants were divided into two groups based on their income. 25% participants with highest income were considered the exceptionally successful group, while the remaining 75% of participants were considered less successful."

I think that what Freud is talking about is the let-down after achieving a particularly difficult goal--not about people who are successful relative to their peers after a long career in which they exert effort that is within the range of normal for people of the same social class.

Post-race blues, the arrival fallacy / post-goal depression, and things like that would be a much better way to quantify what Freud was talking about.