Thanks! Yeah, I definitely think immersion listening can really help and I've used it a bit (subs2srs and audio books), but sometimes it can be used as a crutch to avoid speaking. Your app looks really cool and love that you incorporated SRS. Anecdotally, the hardest thing I've seen with my SO and I is that we end up switching back to english as we aren't disciplined when practicing together (even when in the other country itself lol)
I would kindly disagree and say that it's better to learn the pronunciation rules and practice producing them. There is a lot of research around learning that production and testing are better for learning (and also why is easier to understand than speak). Specifically, to train pronunciation, the anki decks from the author of the book Fluent Forever are incredible.
Source: Learned a romance language for my SO and everyone I've met in the native country tells me I have a very natural accent and clean pronunciation.
Any recommendations for where to purchase these vintage watches? I've always thought they were beautiful but never sure where to find legitimate sellers (despite googling a bit)
Pre-print for that paper was published 7 months ago and the sample collection date was from April-May 2020. Obviously there have been huge spikes in cases across the world since May 2020 with majority of infections occurring after that timeframe.
The phase 3 trial for JnJ/Janseen had only ~44k participants whereas here we are talking on the order of ~1 per million (that are reported as of today)
There have been a bunch of studies that have come out, with a range of quality in case selection methodology eg. biased sampling, so its still early days. I've seen estimates ranging from 2% - 33% for effects up to 7 months after infection for mild-moderate symptomatic cases. But generally, it seems quite a serious issue.
I think this article is a bit more nuanced based on what they are seeing on the ground. Derek brings up good points about background rates, but papers over some things. It's a complex picture and the below article paints it well.
Also scientists in Norway claim they found the mechanism that causes it.
Well that is the cleverness of most trump statements, toe the line, give a nod to your side, but also retain deniability. If you don't start interpreting, you get into a trap in which you will be outfoxed by anyone who can toe lines enough to not blatantly incriminate themselves.
As for BLM, personally I was never very sympathetic to the portions of protests/riots that caused violence.
I think the point is that after his supporters broke the law and stormed the capitol, interrupting a constitutionally mandated process for the peaceful transfer of power, he told them:
> "Remember this day forever!"
Thus approving of the actions that already occurred and telling them that the crimes that they committed would be justified by history looking back at what they have done. It in no way deescalates the risk of future conflicts.
I think we do have those organizations with trust.
If you want facts only news, go to apnews or reuters. They are the mastheads of impartiality, or at least as much as possible with humans.
However, the NYT is what I consider as investigative journalism that includes informed speculation. A lot of stories that otherwise never would have seen the light of day were broken by the NYT, however at the time of publishing there was a degree of uncertainty given the nature of the story. The uncertainty means they could be wrong, even if the odds are high at 90% correct. However, I would argue both are valuable, just understand which you are reading.