Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\WindowsUpdate]
"ProductVersion"="Windows 10"
"TargetReleaseVersion"=dword:00000001
"TargetReleaseVersionInfo"="22H2"
Sets the underlying Registry keys for the Group Policy "Select the target Feature Update version". It tells the Windows Update service to select updates for a specific feature update instead of offering latest.
There is research correlating autism and mothers taking certain medications (painkillers, antidepressants). Since autism is hereditary, there is a significant chance that these mothers are autistic too. Autistic people have a vastly high risk of depression, and often have unusual pain thresholds, requiring more painkillers. I would not be surprised of the correlation was real, but the direction of action was reversed; after all, it's plausible that autism causes the need for taking more medication.
This was my thought as well. I’m likely on the spectrum (as I have learned recently, because of my kids) and I would consider myself hypersensitive. To a variety of sensory inputs - noise, smell, touch, heat, cold, tickling and probably also pain. The latter being hard to quantify of course.
But I could certainly imagine that a mother with autistic traits could be someone who takes painkillers more often than the average person.
That’s very interesting! I’ve been sleuthing for personal reasons and I’ve recently arrived at the central nervous system element called the nucleus of the solitary tract (NTS), which integrates sensory processes including pain reception. I’m tracing a particular activator of the mineralocorticoid receptors for which NTS has special relevance, but the end target overall seems to be mTOR in the NTS, which isn’t so niche and is studied in autism.
It seems that higher sensitivity to pain could be a very plausible cause. I believe there's studies showing lowered (and altered) pain tolerance with autism.
Though I'd expect that if aspirin did have an affect that it'd change the prevalence or severity of autism in children having genes related to autism.
There'd be a first order correction fornthe likelihood that aspirin is causitive by controlling for increased ibuprofen and tylonol usage as well. The second order correction would be whether autistic people were more likely to use aspirin over ibuprofen or tylonol, etc.
Ugh yeah, s/aspirin/Tylenol/. My brain always wants to call Tylenol and acetaminophen as generic "aspirins" and it's a hard habit to break. Joys of having ADHD I didn't even notice the switch.
Nevertheless, comparing the observed correlations of Tylenol with aspirin and ibuprofen would be the first thing to check. Seems unlikely to me that the OP's suggestion could be controlled for that way. I'll be curious if Kennedy's report checks those basic things.
One important point here is that NSAIDs like aspirin and ibuprofen should be avoided at least in the second half of pregnancy. Acetaminophen is usually the “go to” painkiller for pregnant women, which of course skews the result.
> Since autism is hereditary, there is a significant chance that these mothers are autistic too.
Yep. Two of my 5 are clearly HFA (1 diagnosed) and another shows strong indications. My wife and I have numerous family members that are somewhere on the spectrum. It's how this works.
How can one know it is due to DNA or how the brain works versus learned behaviour? I suppose it is possible to learn different traits and behaviour from parents so that the offspring behave in an autistic way even if they are not "physically" autistic.
It's actually very difficult to prove that something is genetically heritable vs heritable through other means including diet, medicines, etc. Especially when you want to account for effects in the womb, where you can't do twin studies. Even things like height and IQ, it's not clear how the heritability is passed on, much less something as complicated as high functioning autism.
Science is difficult, yes. Otherwise, no. We know a lot and with high certainty.
I think it’s harmful to pretend that reality is inscrutable and that science struggles to give answers. It’s fuel for the RFK Jr type of societal parasite.
We do not in fact know with high certainty the amount of genetic causality in IQ (or the broad validity of IQ itself, but stipulate that isn't a problem). Molecular genetics has shaken things up over the last 8-10 years.
Pretending that we know a lot about something with high certainty so that you can get a one up on RFK Jr types is much more harmful, especially on the long term. The anti RFK Jr types end up being distrusted and put in the same bucket as the RFK Jr types for spreading misinformation.
There are people distrustful of those who proclaim the earth round. There is no threshold of certainty where unreasonable skepticism will be eliminated, science is a tool for the reasonable.
It's not misinformation. Reasonable people know that science determining something is true only means the current evidence strongly indicates its true, and that future results may call anything into question, but we should not expect any particular current finding to be false. It is misinformation to characterize the lack of absolute certainty, which is something science can never produce, as indicative that claims differing from the scientific consensus are equally supported by the evidence.
You don't need to worry about people losing trust in science because science does not require trust. Those who are unsatisfied with anything less than certainty need something other than science.
We do need to worry about people losing trust in science because science depends on public funding.
And it’s not about complete certainty. It’s that it actually is very difficult to prove genetic heritability vs effects in the womb because you can’t do twin studies, going back to my original comment.
Pretending to be more certain about it than reality IS misinformation. When you lie, people believe you less. They don’t want to give you money anymore. As we are finding out currently. I think “pro-science” liars are much more harmful than whatever “science skeptics” they find online.
> It’s that it actually is very difficult to prove genetic heritability vs effects in the womb because you can’t do twin studies, going back to my original comment.
You seem weirdly fixated on this point, and to your rhetorical disadvantage.
It is difficult to tell whether you are being accidentally or willfully ignorant. Maternal effects are well-accounted for in research. It is extremely improbable that we’ll ever find out that they have anything but a very minor influence on ASD compared to genetic factors.
> Maternal effects are well-accounted for in research.
Lol, no it's not. Genetic heritability vs other types of heritability is not accounted for in multiple areas like height and IQ and it seems you are just ignorant of it.
> weirdly fixated
> rhetorical disadvantage
Are you just playing a debate game or having a discussion?
Cool story, but I don’t really lose any sleep over anti-science idiots prompting themselves into sustained relevance over the long term, short term, or even the next electoral term, really.
It's important to note our understanding is far from complete. There may be more genes associated with autism than we currently know. So 30% of cases may have a known genetic factor but that doesn't mean 70% don't have a genetic component.
This is also explained as a genetic factor as chromosomal abnormalities and replication errors are more frequent although cumulative environmental exposures may also play a role.
That's what our genetic councilor said as well. It's important to note autism is a spectrum and quite varied, some of it genetic and some of it related to other factors.
I've read some studies which suggest there's a variety of genes which are linked to autism as well as link to both autism and ADHD. I believe those genes are linked to how different brain circuits interact.
It makes a lot of sense given with I've seen talked a lot about in autism and adhd groups, with some symptoms overlapping.
My link isn't a study it's a layman's terms explanation, but there are lots of studies. Your link mentions a meta analysis of 7 studies concluding that up to 90% is genetic.
Yes environmental factors are there too, otherwise it would be 100%, but there's enough evidence pointing to genetics that it is really disappointing when people try to find spurious links to false causes instead.
> I couldn’t help but notice that there’s near-universal confusion about what “heritable” means. Partly, that’s because it’s a subtle concept. But it also seems relevant that almost all explanations of heritability are very, very confusing.
For example, they say speaking Turkish isn’t heritable but speaking English is. Weird!
> Heritability can be high even when genes have no direct causal effect. It can be low even when there is a strong direct effect. It changes when the environment changes. It even changes based on how you group people together. It can be larger than 100% or even undefined.
Autism speaks is a spiritually evil organization and the fact that you unironically linked them implies that you wish to wage cognitive warfare against all autistic people. Autistic people will respond by making sure you reincarnate as a durian fruit.
> there is no evidence of gene expression for autism.
The fact that we haven't identified candidate genes for autism and a bunch of other mental health issues doesn't mean these aren't hereditary or have hereditary triggers that make outbreaks easier.
> if anything it is epigenetic caused by environmental pollutants and hormone exposure
Doubtful. The difference to older times is, we now properly diagnose mental health issues instead of just labeling affected people as "loons", locking them away in institutions or, like it happened with witch-burnings and in the NS Aktion T4, outright murder them.
You don't have to identify the root cause for that though, all it takes is studying the prevalence of a disease across family trees, that would be evidence of genetic expression.
Autism appears to be hereditary, but the eugenicists haven't identified a genetic component (nor have any other researchers, who are admittedly less motivated to find one). We're pretty sure that autism is a developmental condition, but the correlations with other things are… weird. (Off-hand: fœtal androgen and œstrogen levels, some chromosomal disorders, some mitochondrial disorders, a handful of rare single-point mutations, maternal autoantibodies, gut flora, something something oxidative stress (doesn't replicate, but keeps coming up).) Maybe they all tie into a "single cause" somehow, but… well, there's no single cause for eye colour (developmentally a much simpler trait), so the whole idea that autism is a deviation from the baseline, explicably attributable to a single factor, is somewhat of an article of faith.
Sure it can. Type 2 diabetes is both hereditary and lifestyle/behavioral influenced . Same with cancer, if you have cancer in your family your risk of getting cancer is higher. I would say most medical issues are both. Heart disease, gout, obesity, hypertension,strokes,asthma etc.
Let me put this a bit differently: Type 2 diabetes is both genetic and can be acquired during one's life (e.g. through bad dietary choices). But a man who develops diabetes does not acquire genetic T2D by doing so - he cannot pass it on directly to his children.
Confusing the effects of starvation with Lamarckian inheritance is a fundamental category error. If starvation affected every cell in your body except for the gametes, that would be worth investigating.
> with Lamarckian inheritance is a fundamental category error
Would you believe that things are more complex than neat categories discovered in 1850 that you learn in fifth grade?
Starvation is just the most studied aspect of this as it is easier to find control groups. However, you could easily search and find others, which you don't seem to be willing to do for some reason.
This is not groundbreaking research, this has been known for a while. The current focus is to understand possible non-genetic pathways for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
"Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression that occur without altering the underlying DNA sequence. These changes, also known as epigenetic modifications, affect how genes are turned "on" or "off" and are influenced by factors like environment, lifestyle, and aging."
That's a separate effect, known as acromelanism, or "point coloration". It's the result of an enzyme which is inactivated by higher temperatures, not a genetic change - the extent of pointing can change over an animal's lifetime, and the specific pattern isn't inherited. (For instance, if you somehow convinced a cat with color pointing to wear a sweater, its fur would stay light under that sweater, but any offspring it had would not inherit that pattern.)
That isn't a genetic change either, though. Those species of turtle either lack the typical sex-determining chromosomes entirely, or have sex-determining chromosomes which can be inactivated during development. The genotype doesn't change as a result of what temperature the egg is incubated at; its expression does.
That voltage spike only applies to flyback converter. Your typical buck/boost converter doesn't do that - the current waveform is a sawtooth, and voltage ripple is designed to be in the mV range.
The nature of surges is not simple like that - a lightning strike can easily blow MOVs and inrush limiting resistors in multiple devices. I come from a rural area and coming to someone's house with a bag of fresh MOVs and resistors is not an uncommon thing after a big storm.
I believe that it highly depends on the type of the surge protector, their ratings and the cable network involved. I do not think that it would cause issues in two surge protectors from power outlets connected in series, and depending on their rating and switching characteristics maybe both could trigger, I agree.
I believe the question is if it's safe at all to do so rather than whether the protection works or not, though I'd have to be all ears about interactions between multiple parallel surge arrestors.
It's not very different from daisy chaining normal extension cords - safe if you know what you're doing (not exceeding the current rating on any of them). Most surge protectors are fused, making them safer to daisy-chain than normal extension cords.
> It's not very different from daisy chaining normal extension cords - safe if you know what you're doing
It’s not safe, and it’s expressly forbidden by the NEC, see 11.1.5 below:
> 11.1.5 Extension Cords
> 11.1.5.1
> Extension cords shall be plugged directly into an approved receptacle, power tap, or multiplug adapter and shall, except for approved multiplug extension cords, serve only one portable appliance.
Daisy chaining extension cords is unsafe and not recommended. Only use extension cords that you’ve inspected and are properly rated for the environment (don’t use indoor cords outside, don’t use an outdoor extension cord outdoors unless it’s GFCI protected) and power usage of the device you are powering.
Any time electricity has to flow through a splice or mechanical connection, the possibility of a loose connection causing an arc and subsequent fire exists.
It’s unlikely to happen to you specifically, but it does happen and avoiding electrical fires is a good thing if it can be avoided.
Daisy chaining power strips is also forbidden by the NEC:
> 11.1.4.2
> The relocatable power taps shall be directly connected to a permanently installed receptacle.
Yes, there is a risk of failure involved with anything electrical, but I don't see why anyone would consider chaining extension cords inherently dangerous enough to ban. It increases the number of connections, but that's a miniscule risk compared to the 5+ connections an extension cord might have on its own. The only significant risk I know is people disregarding the max amperage rating of everything in that chain.
For anecdotal experience, I've had both extension cords and wall plugs fail (nothing serious thankfully, but they did get a bit melted), but in those cases it had nothing to do with my extension cord chains, but rather an internal connection failure.
AFAIk, the rationale for extension chords is that they are sized to cause a controlled amount of voltage drop within their lenght. If you keep adding them, you will increase the drop, and many devices will react by increasing the current.
This is correct. For a 120v 12FLA load at a distance of 50’, you’re fine using a #14 cord. If you double that to 100’, you need to use #10 cord to account for the voltage drop. As voltage drop increases, the amount of current flowing through the cord increases, which can potentially heat up the insulation beyond its rated temperature.
It is probably one of those little process changes to minimize chance of catastrophic failure. Sure, the risk of the daisy chained system going poof is low, but not zero. Instead, you should try to re-work your plans so you do not need to daisy chain.
As an aside, increasing the length of extension cords can cause premature failure of some devices (mostly motorized tools, especially cheaply-made ones) if the wire gauge is inadequate, due to voltage drop.
As a general rule, I wouldn’t run tools past 50 feet on anything smaller than 12 AWG (and really, 14 AWG is the smallest I’d go for any length; anything smaller isn’t safe for most loads).
