Pretty improbable win as you could have lost like 4 times in that match. Nice job
Illfonic sucks ass
2 Likes
1 Like
It’s a shame you dont have an actual sense of humor but love attempting to roast people.
You just look pathetic honestly.
1 Like
Oh and all the phg videos people post on here?
Boring as fuck.
1 Like
The serious ones and the drama ones.
Idk what videos he makes haven’t seen em.
But the games boring as hell to watch.
The ones were people get tilted and talk shit are boring.
Same shit different day.
The ones with serious players are always bow hopping preds or disk, and ft using snipers or some assault rifle.
Because of the horrible balancing by @IllFonic
The game play is so limited you see no creative or clever game play.
The same thing over and over and over and over.
Yeah, the game can get boring. @Maskedkane316 mises in movie clips and other media at rather well picked moments and the clips are good too. Probably some of the most creative videos here.
I might have to keep an eye out then.
Btw got a video for you that you might find interesting.
1 Like
Lol, i bet a lot of early experiments were poorly controlled, but science has a hard time going back and being down people credited with these studies.
It’s statistics, but in general it’s hard for me to believe that individual factors can be isolated and weighted as a contributor to whatever cause, but that’s the basis of much scientific research.
What do you mean with your second part?
Sorry I didnt really get it.
For example when the look at risk factors contributing to hypertension: salt consumption, smoking, obesity, age and assign weighted values among them: age (15%), obesity (20%), etc. It’s not confounding as mentioned in the vid about fluoride improving dental health, but to be able to control all other factors and assume that these are the only contributors and that there isn’t some interaction in play which isn’t not part of the equation is too simplistic, in my opinion. @TheSenate, what’s your take?
2 Likes
This bitch had the nerve to whine about down range with a premade (all high percentage players) of 3 Dutch and a recon spotter with tracker. Get fucked
4 Likes
My opinion is that the very essence of science is looking at the very minutiae of things.
The likes of alchemists and scientific philosophers of old such as Cornelius Agrippa searched for things like the elixir of life and to transmute metals promised everything, but accomplished nothing. But the modern scientist who toils in the laboratory and follows the scientific method can replace entire organs and cure what was once incurable. (If anyone gets what I’m referencing I’ll be very surprised)
It all boils down to the scientific method, which if you want the essence of the concept is to tweak one variable while maintaining others to determine if there is correlation, and if so to what degree.
We aim to control all other variables, but this is not feasible on the macro scale of human lives. You are correct in that it likely is not as simple.
Those are determined as risk factors, many repeatable and reputable scientific studies from many different regions have shown as much.
The weighted averages are the best assessments of the data from one observational experiment. This would not account for environmental or other such factors and the fact that human bodies are insanely complex and varied (some people can smoke and drink all their lives and not develop hypertension, but some people are just born with it).
We can’t control all factors, but by increasing the population size of our samples, we can greatly decrease (but never truly eliminate) the effect outliers and random chance to get more accurate data, which can then be interpreted into the weighted statistics.
So while it is generally a good measure and mathematically correct based on the available data, it is not a fixed number that could be applied everywhere 100% of the time and should be used as a guideline/framework in daily life.
We accept the current data that is supported, until new research and data either improves the accuracy and specificity or disproves the current knowledge. That is everything that science is, as our knowledge is constantly evolving.
1 Like
I get you now.
Yeah definitely feels like it needs closer observation.
Yes, 95% certainty is the benchmark. I do agree that the more test subjects there are, the more likely it is that statistical analysis holds up. I was thinking more in lines of that the proposed risk factors may not explain for all the data, yet a weighed analysis may look like it does. Or will weighed analysis have a place holder for the unidentified risk factor? Also, in medical research, the peer reviews almost never repeat the experiment and can only criticize the data available, right? I know it’s very expensive and inconvenient to repeat, but isn’t this a major flaw?
1 Like
It’s probably mostly right, but i still have a feeling like theses a significant fault in this and the only solution is that science will correct itself in time.
1 Like
Oh the proposed risk factors certainly don’t account for all data. Genetic variability, gene expression, environmental (just what you are exposed to because of where you live is insane), and many other factors that can’t all be analyzed in one experiment will inevitably impact the data. It is because of this that there is a percent error. This is a general +/-% value that any data analysis or the data itself could be incorrect by. This rarely makes it out of the lab/experiment report and into the common media.
So, generally a well designed scientific experiment will run multiple trials, as well as including all steps for the reproduction of the experiment. The more repeatable a study is the more reputable it is. If multiple separate institutions conduct the same experiment separately and find the same conclusion the more reliable the data is. It is very expensive, but is a necessary step to ensure that the data gained is accurate and can be applied to “the real world”.
Generally there aren’t repeat experiments unless it is something entirely new/groundbreaking, medical, has an unsatisfactorily small sample size, or any other such reason that the data validity is being questioned.
2 Likes
There are definitely faults in this. Some that we don’t know right now, and some that we may never live to see discovered.
The beauty of science is that no experiment or knowledge is ever really done. It is constantly evolving and changing and becoming more detailed and more accurate as people keep asking questions and testing to find the answered.
I mean, look at the evolution of our knowledge of the atom. We are still learning more about subatomics to this very day, and will continue to learn more in the future.
And it is all done one measured step at a time, and our knowledge gradually becomes more detailed, accurate, and correct.
1 Like
Oh ya bby keep talking all sciencey to me.
Seriously tho I love discussions like this.
At least listening lmao.
2 Likes
Oh I love talking sciencey.
I actually love learning and talking about science and such to the degree that after doc I may go into education or research after I retire.
I’ll at least keep the possibility open for myself.
2 Likes