Leave a comment

Comments 2

kalimac January 4 2017, 17:55:11 UTC
It's not true, or at least it wasn't true, back when keypad layouts were being set up, that phone numbers in the US had random digits. Originally, 1 was prohibited as a number in the first two digits of the prefix (the first three digits of a 7-digit phone number), and 0 was prohibited in all three places. They were also both prohibited in the opening and closing digits of area codes, although the middle digit of area codes was always 1 or 0. (A way for the phone to distinguish area codes from prefixes, before the prefatory 1+ was invented.) But that last didn't increase the use of 1 and 0 much: area codes were rarely dialed before the 1960s; most places did not have direct long-distance dialing, and even when they did, long-distance calls were extremely expensive and hence rare. Most of these rules have since gone by the wayside with the pressure for more numbers, but they were there then.

Reply


steer January 4 2017, 21:25:32 UTC
The full paper for the ASB report is here:

https://icseclzt.cc.ic.ac.uk/pickup.php?claimID=AP33mziEEwRbQ22M&claimPasscode=7D4k9dv5WATYKJF2&emailAddr=caroline.brogan%40imperial.ac.uk

I think it supports the assertion in the article that it is an opinion piece more than a systematic review. They cite a bunch of evidence some of find ASBs support weight loss and some of which does not find that. They don't attempt to combine this evidence in a meaningful way.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up