Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
And since the inner ear helps with maintaining balance people with hearing loss are 2.4 times more likely to suffer from falls — a danger that hearing aids can prevent by up to 50%.
With probability 1/2, give car to Alice and house to George; otherwise, give car to George and house to Alice. The expected utility is (2/2 + 3/2) = 2.5 for Alice and (2/2 + 9/2) = 5.5 for George. Both allocations are ex-post PE, since the one who got the car cannot be made better-off without harming the one who got the house.
During a Phonak Slim study, 63% of people rated Phonak Slim as more comfortable to wear compared to their own hearing aids and 67% of people rated Phonak Slim as more secure when wearing glasses ...
A 2018 survey from the Public Policy Institute of California found that 57% of Californians say that Proposition 13 is mostly a good thing, while 23% say it is mostly a bad thing. 65% of likely voters say it has been mostly a good thing, as do: 71% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 61% of independents; 54% of people age 18 to 34, 52% of ...
Hearing aids are incapable of truly correcting a hearing loss; they are an aid to make sounds more audible. The most common form of hearing loss for which hearing aids are sought is sensorineural, resulting from damage to the hair cells and synapses of the cochlea and auditory nerve. Sensorineural hearing loss reduces the sensitivity to sound ...
The carbon transmitter was used to amplify sound by taking a weak signal and using electric current to make it a strong signal. [3] These electronic hearing aids could eventually be shrunk into purses and other accessories. [3] One of the first manufacturers of the electronically amplified hearing aid was the Siemens company in 1913. Their ...
Nonetheless, the person performing the act must do it in reliance on the offer. [12] A unilateral contract differs from a bilateral contract, where there is an exchange of promises between two parties. For example, if one party promises to buy a car and the other party promises to sell a car, that is a bilateral contract.
Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerned with U.S. income tax law. [1] The case is cited as part of the basis for two legal doctrines: the business purpose doctrine and the doctrine of substance over form.