One persistent problem is that there isn't a Canadian English spelling option in most software with spellchecking functionality. Often we are forced to choose between US English and British English spelling defaults, when neither is quite right. I suspect that this was a stylistic choice not of Carney himself, but whoever proofread the document. There has been considerable erosion in Canadian orthography in of late, which has only been made worse with the widespread adoption of UFLI English language learning materials in our schools' elementary curricula, which emphasizes American spelling and pronunciation.
The reality is quite complicated. Canadian English is a version of North American English, with a distinctive pronunciation and sub-dialect, but still has vestiges of British English that are lost in America.
I feel like Canada is of two minds, awkwardly and indecisively straddling North American English and British English. It wasn’t until I worked overseas that I realized North America has a very distinctive English that imprints on people, even if they lived there a few years. As in Londoners who spent a few years in North America as toddlers have obvious North American tonality, which is baffling to me.
I have native relatives in Canada and the UK and I find the language dynamics across the anglosphere fascinating.
> The reality is quite complicated. Canadian English is a version of North American English, with a distinctive pronunciation and sub-dialect, but still has vestiges of British English that are lost in America.
Does Canadian English still use "gotten"? IIRC, that's a vestige of British English that's been lost in Britain.
New Englander here. Gotten is normal vocabulary. If it's not used in British English, then it's probably a feature of North American English, since most North American linguistic differences are snapshots of common features of 16th-17th century British English that somehow ossified over here.
What I'm most interested is not usage of "gotten", but whether somewhere in the English-speaking world, using "I've" standalone (without a follow-on got, been, had etc) is normal.
I see it from time to time online, and immediately assume they're a non-native speaker who doesn't understand the nonsensical nuances of the language.
Eg people will say something like "I've 3 apples", which is just "I have 3 apples", which is perfectly gramattical. But, for some reason, we use "I've got 3 apples". But I think we'd also say "I have 3 apples" and not "I have got 3 apples".
I'm British and I have sometimes chosen Canadian English as my OS language so that it will not constantly try to correct my usage of z in words like this.
Not to cast shade, but it looks like you've essentially built a front-end for Desmos. It definitely makes things faster than trying to do it directly in Desmos.
Suggestion: Most of the fits that you've done assume that the errors are normally distributed. It would be worthwhile adding some graphical or numerical checks on that, rather than having goodness of fit or visual inspection be the only indication if this is a faulty assumption.
It gave made for a good quick check testing some data I had.
LaTeX was much easier with Overleaf for my PhD thesis. I still recommend that for friends starting a thesis or a book project. I even used it for recent book project with a friend.
As you noted, one needs a lot of fine tuning to meet publication rules & guidelines. Compared to a local LaTeX editor or Overleaf, this looks too generic to meet the needs I've had in the past. Sure, LaTeX can require a lot of tinkering, but PhD students ought be able to figure it out for themselves, whether through documentation, forums, or asking labmates.
I wouldn’t, solely because it’s still in version 0.X - for any long-term, important project (e.g., PhD dissertation) I’d recommend LaTeX due to A) it’s mature and B) many universities provide LaTeX templates.
The Globe and Mail had a piece on March 25th on the advice that lawyers were giving to their clients, often Canadians working on TN visas down south:
> York-based immigration law firm Dyer Harris LLP, which helps foreigners secure work visas in the U.S., sent an e-mail to their clients residing and working in the country to hold off on international travel altogether, unless in an emergency.
Yeah I run a startup accelerator out of the back of a Canadian law firm, saw a note from the GC of the firm reminding the lawyers not to do non-essential work cross border and to take firm issued blank laptops and phones across. Clearly being taken seriously.
UV damage to internal tissues seems unlikely given that the tartrazine dye they used absorbs strongly in the UV region of the spectrum. You can see this in Figure S1 A & B:
Also the abstract of the article notes that strong UV absorption is likely a prerequisite for this effect:
> We hypothesized that strongly absorbing molecules can achieve optical transparency in live biological tissues. By applying the Lorentz oscillator model for the dielectric properties of tissue components and absorbing molecules, we predicted that dye molecules with sharp absorption resonances in the near-ultraviolet spectrum (300 to 400 nm) and blue region of the visible spectrum (400 to 500 nm) are effective in raising the real part of the refractive index of the aqueous medium at longer wavelengths when dissolved in water, which is in agreement with the Kramers-Kronig relations. As a result, water-soluble dyes can effectively reduce the RI contrast between water and lipids, leading to optical transparency of live biological tissues.
However this kind of research into the effects of absorption bands on the transmission properties at interfaces might ultimately bring about more effective sunscreen formulations.
> UV damage to internal tissues seems unlikely given that the tartrazine dye they used absorbs strongly in the UV region of the spectrum
To expand: "the most hazardous UV radiation has wavelengths between 240 nm and 300 nm" [2]. While tartrazine has a lambda max at 425 nm in water [2], it has a second ridiculously-convenient peak around 260 nm [3].
TL; DR It should be mildly UV protective ceteris paribus.
like an x-ray, I'd risk that for a one-off doctors appointment, but I'd probably not risk it on my body at all times. maybe there are safer dyes that have the same effect
You cannot always obtain a generic version; sometimes not even the original version.
Drug manufacturers regularly take approved medicines, which are off-patent and non-exclusive, due to safety reasons (side-effects, risks to patients) or due to commercial reasons: high cost of production, low demand, or possibly to increase demand for an exclusive alternative.
There are also perverse incentives at play and it often isn't easy to get a generic approved, especially if the original drug was already removed from market, under biosimilar regulations:
> Drug manufacturers regularly take approved medicines, which are off-patent and non-exclusive, due to safety reasons (side-effects, risks to patients) or due to commercial reasons: high cost of production, low demand, or possibly to increase demand for an exclusive alternative.
One of the big reasons is the cost of regulatory approval. Most drugs are cheap to make per-unit but if you're only going to sell to a few thousand patients, the fixed cost of regulatory approval means nobody does it at all, and then the patient has to buy a patented drug that costs a lot more.
Lower the cost of making generics and more people will do it.
>Drug manufacturers regularly take approved medicines, which are off-patent and non-exclusive, due to safety reasons (side-effects, risks to patients) or due to commercial reasons: high cost of production
Sounds like the new drug is providing value, contrary to what the parent poster is claiming.
> or possibly to increase demand for an exclusive alternative.
Aren't generics typically produced by a manufacturer other than the original manufacturer? Sure, the original manufacturer might have a generics division to compete with generics, but if they're the sole provider there's no reason to offer a generic to undercut their brand-name variant. This theory makes no sense.
When a drug first stops being protected by a patent, in order for another company to begin making a generic version, they have to pay some up-front costs (of course).
If the government requirements for starting a generic for it are particularly stringent, it seems like these up-front costs might be particularly high?
I feel like there may be a strategy stealing argument that might apply here?
If it would be profitable for another company to pay the upfront costs to produce a new generic, then it seems like the company that is already producing the drug could undercut them, by producing the same drug as they are already making. (perhaps under a different brand name as they were already doing?)
This seems like it would discourage other companies from trying, as there might be a significant chance they don’t recoup their up-front cost?
If the company with the patent releases a new improved version of the drug, which is under a new patent, it seems like they could potentially phase the old one out of production, getting people on to the new one? If they didn’t need to lower the price of the old one due to no generic being produced, then even if the improvements are marginal, it might not be hard to get people to switch to the improved-and-still-under-patent version (just by telling people it is an improvement and that old version might not be available soon).
If they then stop producing the old version, then a company that makes generics could then make a generic without worrying about being undercut by the original company, but if people are switched to the improved version, will they notice that there is a generic of the version they used to take, and, if so, will they trust it? Maybe? I don’t know. Maybe they would. (Oh, especially if the out-of-pocket price is the same, due to insurance, they might be less inclined to try switching to it..)
If it is unclear whether people would switch to it, then the company considering making the generic has a significant wager to make. Would they make it?
Maybe they would. Maybe the chain of events I described falls apart at some point. I don’t think it is obvious that it does, but it seems reasonably likely that this chain I described doesn’t work and isn’t a real phenomenon. But I don’t think it obviously doesn’t work.
> With this, there are no changes to our support policy for existing Chromecast devices, with continued software and security updates to the latest devices.
It bothers me when these company blogs link to the wrong page for finding the aforementioned policy. It feels so deceptive. I've seen it happen multiple times. Is it intentional?
