Not really. 0-based indexing is different from counting and starting with 0 in a counting context is weird. Would you ever say a set has zero elements when it actually contains a single element?
It's a remarkable coincidence that I'm reading the book The Nothing that Is: A Natural History of Zero by Robert Kaplan, and this passage on page 96 seems precisely relevant to this situation:
"""A Roman idiosyncrasy about counting reinforced this
avoidance. The 360 degrees of longitude, for example, were
always measured from the vernal equinox, which lies in the
zodiacal sign of Aries. This should be zero degrees, 0°. It was
common, however, to call it instead 'the first degree', Aries 1°,
as Pliny did around 60 AD, upsetting his calculations and those
of many who followed him. It amounts to this: if you lay out
four marks on the ground and step from the first to the last,
have you taken three paces or four? Clearly three; yet four
marks were involved. To get the right answer it helps to call
the starting-line 'zero'; then the number at the mark you step
on will correspond to the number of your steps. But the Romans
counted so that three days after Sunday was Tuesday; the Italian
for the fifteenth century is the quattrocento — and all of us still
call the two steps in music from C to E a major third, taking
the number from the three tones involved."""
I wouldn't say that the set that has one element, labeled 0, _has_ zero elements; it has one element with the label 0. Right?
MBA dorks do dumb things to language for no good reason, creating unnecessary jargon. Even dumber people around them hear them use it, and misunderstand the specifics of how it was used and the context that made it sort-of be reasonable (this step optional—often there was no reason or need for the new word or usage whatsoever, in the first place) and start using it all over for things they already had accurate and correct words for because they think it sounds cool or like they're "in the know", I guess. English suffers, while they grin and drool their way up the "org chart".
In my line of work, its certain peoples' jobs to know certain things. If I need a piece of information that somebody else is responsible for understanding, I'm just going to ask directly for what I need instead of trying to research it myself. To research it myself would mean attempting to do somebody else's job, which is just unhelpful for everyone.
If its not just a matter of perspective and only medication can help, etc, then why do we call depression a "psychological" or "mental health" concern? Why isn't it just considered a neurological disease?
Depression is increasingly starting to be seen as a neurobiological disorder as we learn more.
In my own opinion, we need to stop viewing "mental health" as a separate class of conditions from general/physical health. A mental illness is a health/medical condition just like any other and shifting our views and diagnostic criteria in that direction would do a lot to remove the stigma associated with mental illness.
Someone with depression has a chronic illness, not a temporary "it's just in your head" condition.
And all without the proper permits! Using 35 generators when they were only allowed 15! Yay! So glad we're allowing AI companies to break law after law after law to not be able to reason logically the basic Towers of Hanoi.
It sounds like the researchers failed to compare their semaglutide group to a calorie-controlled placebo group. The beneficial changes noted in the semaglutide group could very well be due to reduced calorie diet, rather than a specific effect of the drug itself.
This is why people end up skeptical of academic types and science publications.
