\u201CWhen building a SuperApp (one app for many things) that integrates dozens of services you can opt to build services in-house, have third-party APIs where people can build their own apps, or have formal partnerships where you integrate another company\u2019s services into your app. [\u2026] In mid-2018, Gojek launched its third-party platform (\u201CTPP\u201D) so that businesses besides Gojek could build apps on its platform. Their goal was to turn Gojek into the operating system of the phone. WeChat enjoys this luxury in China and Gojek wanted the same relationship with Indonesians and other Southeast Asian citizens. Gojek, seems to have relied more on developing services in-house than other SuperApps and this was their chance to begin branching out.\u201D
East Meets West: Part 2
Inclusion criteria allowed enrollment of adults of any gender between the ages of 18 and 80 years with a diagnosis of any cancer undergoing conventional treatment of chemotherapy/biotherapy at the institution of study. Medical clearance was required. Participants were to receive treatment through at least 6 of the 8 weeks of the study. Those not meeting the inclusion criteria, or undergoing concurrent radiation therapy, were excluded. However, 1 participant exceeding the age limit expressed interest in the study, received medical clearance from providers, and was enrolled. The upper age limit of the inclusion criteria was not an evidence-based limitation; it was a mistaken assumption that patients older than 80 years would not be interested in participating. There is no age limit to self-care agency, and participation in health and wellness activities should be encouraged throughout the life span.
It was also surmised that, given the range of disease processes, stages, and treatment schedules, participants would be unable to attend all sessions. This was the reality of life for the study population, but it was assumed there was value in this intervention for each participant. The PIs allowed for this variability and planned to use data from participants who attended at least 4 of the sessions.
Geographically, samples of Rhipicephalus sp. I. have only been collected in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Basin, similarly to the origin of other sequences from this group available in GenBank (Fig. 6). Complementarily to this, samples of the subgroup Rhipicephalus sp. IIa have been collected in the middle and western part of the Mediterranean Basin, as well as in Hungary, showing a zone of overlap with Rhipicephalus sp. I in Serbia. The geographical occurrence of Rhipicephalus sp. IIb was focal within the range of Rhipicephalus sp. IIa (in northern Morocco, Italy and Croatia-Zagreb; Fig. 6).
If not current climatic conditions, then other factors influencing the tick life-cycle may provide a plausible explanation for the parapatric separation of Rhipicephalus sp. I and Rhipicephalus sp. II lineages in the Mediterranean Basin. Molecular evidence from a broad range of invertebrate and vertebrate taxa (i.e. potentially encompassing ticks and their hosts) indicate that southern peninsulas of Europe acted as major refugia during ice age(s), from which genetically distinct clades emerged [21]. While recolonization events to northern parts of Europe may have resulted in secondary sympatry for these clades, their genetic differences are still maintained and demonstrable. Thus, several (potential) host species of R. sanguineus had also been affected by glacial isolation in the same way. For example, wolf haplotype lineages and hedgehog species differ between Italy and the Balkans [21, 22], and genetically distinct populations of bank voles exist in the western and eastern Balkans [23]. These geographical patterns are similar to the one observed for Rhipicephalus sp. I and Rhipicephalus sp. II in the present study, suggesting that during ice age(s) the Mediterranean range of R. sanguineus (in sympatry with the above hosts) was not confluent, but inhabited by reproductively isolated tick populations. Nevertheless, successful interbreeding between ticks from Rhipicephalus sp. I and Rhipicephalus sp. IIb populations (listed as reference sequences from Israel and USA, Oklahoma on Figs. 2 and 3) had already been demonstrated [10].
In Syrian households, bread and salt are the first things proffered to guests as a gustatory prelude to friendship. So when pastry chef Kira Desmond and her business partner Firas Daker decided to open an East-meets-West bakery and restaurant in Mississauga, Ont., they wanted to capture that spirit of congeniality. Hence the name Bread and Salt Bakehouse.
Dravidians. While genetically, farmers from Iran contributed to most of the DNA of the northwestern subcontinent and the IVC, around 5,000 years ago, some farmer groups began to fan out, mix with the aborigine Indians in much of what is present day India, and establish agricultural communities throughout the subcontinent. This mixture, which is around 25 percent Iranian farmer and 75 percent aboriginal Indian, spread throughout the subcontinent by 4,000 years ago, and has been labeled by scientists as Ancestral South Indian (ASI), another misnomer since ASI populations were the base populations of most of the subcontinent prior to 2,000 BCE. Somewhere, in this process of admixture, and expanding wave of agriculture, new stone tools, social organization, and rituals, the Dravidian peoples and language family was born. Judging from the ancient Dravidian-sounding toponyms (place names) of Sindh, Gujarat, and Maharashtra, it is quite likely the roots of this family lie in an eastward expansion along the coast of India into the peninsula and southern India; many of the millets and gourd-like crops cultivated by Dravidian peoples also indicate seaborne contact with tropical parts of the southern Middle East and eastern Africa, while rice was adopted from the east. There is no evidence that Dravidian languages were spoken in the Ganges Valley and Punjab, and the native speakers of these regions may have spoken something related to the language isolate of the Hunza Valley of northern Pakistan, Burushaski. Recent linguistic analysis has found that the Dravidian language family is approximately 4,500 years old (2,500 BCE), which coincides nicely with the South Indian Neolithic period, a period after 3,000 BCE when archaeologists have noted the expansion of cattle rearing, lentil farming, and hilltop villages radiating out from the Godavari River basin in Karnataka and Telangana. While some linguists claim that Dravidian is related to the ancient Elamite language of southwest Iran, which has no known relatives, the jury is still out. 2ff7e9595c
Comentarios