Parts of it remain indecipherable without the social context, however, as the writer explicitly assumes a mutual knowledge of some set of unspecified rules.
The next generation could go down. The PS3 was crazy expensive, and then the PS4 cost significantly less than the PS3 had. So, there's precedent. Adjusted for inflation, the ps3 was even more expensive than the ps5 pro.
I feel like this pattern of people lying to doctors and doctors adjusting things to account for it really messes with rigorously honest people.
A little while back I was reading how when they ask you how much pain you're in, with 10 being the most pain imaginable, they pretty routinely have people calmly say "12". So, if you're actually using the scale where you've probably never experienced more than a 9 and would be sobbing at an 8, so you say 7, they automatically assume you're in basically no pain because you said less than 10.
Kind of wish we could just speak accurately and take each other literally instead of playing games where we try to figure out exactly what lie to tell to convey the truth, but I guess that's not how most people are wired.
It's always good to support the original publisher and encourage local libraries by reading a hard copy, so I could never endorse piracy, even for people who can't get their hands on a physical copy. Even though it's true that both libgen and annas-archive have ebook copies of this particular book (and can easily be found via google), I could never in good conscience direct anyone to such a site.
It means the overall death rate in the sample group was decreased substantially. The number of people who survived because they didn't get lung cancer or blood clots was so large that it had a noticeable impact on the number of total survivors, even when you include death by bus. This is a useful measure for a couple of reasons. One, it accounts for the prevalence of the disease being prevented - cutting all pork from your diet prevents 100% of deaths by trichinosis, which accounts for like 0.00001% of deaths from all causes (completely made up numbers and example, without consulting any sources). Two, it could account for net change in survival, for a treatment or behavior that has both positive and negative effects - giving radiation therapy indiscriminately to everyone with any kind of lump might decrease rate of dying from breast cancer, but increase death "from all causes" because it causes more problems than it solves.
I guess an additional way it might be useful is if we don't yet have data on the exact mechanisms by which the treatment helps or what exactly its preventing - all we know is that we gave group A the treatment and not group B, and after 20 years there were a lot more people alive in group A, but we haven't yet found a pattern in which causes of death were most affected and how.
A few years back I got permabanned on reddit by an automated message, for no reason I could figure out. A couple of days later I was unbanned (apparently it was part of a mass banning, most of which were erroneous and reversed). So it's possible this is something similar and you might be reinstated soon.
For anyone else who was curious about lichens covering "a not insignificant amount" of the earth's surface, a quick google tells me it's about 7% (according to e.g. new york times, scientific american, etc)
Edit: oh and estimating the age of an exposed surface by lichen diameter is called lichenometry. I'm seeing stuff about it being used in geological contexts but it makes sense that it could work for old buildings too