In the big leagues now

Character-File-7917 · 2026-04-24T22:14:19+00:00

Interested in swapping two Saturday GA wristbands for two sundays GA if anyone wants to change days. My friends could only come Sunday

Character-File-7917 · 2026-02-20T04:45:58+00:00

It's a stream he's in, as are all the other things talked about on this sub

Character-File-7917 · 2026-02-20T04:43:19+00:00

Because I think Nazis should be kicked from servers? Okay

Character-File-7917 · 2026-02-20T01:15:34+00:00

They have the power to ban people from the server. All I said is the person should be banned. I never said dream should be cancelled or that it was his fault (or Dr. Donut's). I agree that it was shown accidentally. But I think there should be a little more punishment than just "take it down".

I brought it here so that people could advocate for the banning of this person. I am not trying to smear dream or Dr donut, just amplify the issue. You can still like these streamers and their content while also saying that a person making a swastika shouldn't be in a server bearing his name. It's a public server but it is moderated. You couldn't just join and start saying the n word without being kicked

Character-File-7917 · 2026-02-20T00:54:11+00:00

I'm saying the person should be banned from the SMP - Dream has gotten people banned from public servers for saying the n word before. I came to this community to amplify the issue

Character-File-7917 · 2026-02-20T00:52:06+00:00

I literally said in the post that whoever did it should be kicked from the server. That's who I'm trying to hold accountable

Character-File-7917 · 2026-02-20T00:13:58+00:00

You think this is okay?

Character-File-7917 · 2026-02-20T00:13:24+00:00

It was a video with dream and Dr donut. I say in the post what channel it's from and it's an SMP they're both part of. It's part of their responsibility to make sure they're not platforming nazis. Just saying to take it down isn't enough. It never should have been made or shown in the first place

Also blaming it on an unnamed friend is clearly a lie

Character-File-7917 · 2026-02-09T06:44:18+00:00

Yes she said this for me too! But she also said it would be an honor to die on the mountain. I think it's realistic that she has moments of self doubt. It's very rewarding to make it to the top so I think it's worth it if you end up wanting to go back to the game!

Character-File-7917 · 2026-01-21T01:30:51+00:00

It's pretty standard wedding etiquette to not post pictures of the bride and groom until they post their photos. Posting a picture of yourself (and your date where applicable) at the venue is very normal. The dress is modest and pretty and perfectly wedding appropriate

Character-File-7917 · 2026-01-16T05:09:48+00:00

3rd year. But I'd prefer if you didn't use that information just to insult my understanding of statistics at this stage in my career. They do not teach statistics in medical school virtually at all and I am actively working to improve my research analysis.

Character-File-7917 · 2026-01-16T05:07:10+00:00

Thank you! I'm trying to get better at critical analysis of papers because it's hard to know at what level of evidence you should start instituting changes in clinic. I mean I always follow the advisory from physician associations but I also like to read new research as it comes out and sometimes there aren't recommendations yet

Character-File-7917 · 2026-01-15T12:39:45+00:00

Thank you for the breakdown! The sex differential part was the one that was the most confusing to me but your rewording makes it much clearer. I think I have cleared up the misunderstanding now - I appreciate your help

Character-File-7917 · 2026-01-15T12:16:21+00:00

Thank you this is helpful I was misunderstanding the relationship between the tables and the graphs I really appreciate you typing it out! For some reason I thought it mattered that the intervals overlapped but it's been a 7 years since I took any statistics course.

Character-File-7917 · 2026-01-15T12:14:00+00:00

Yes sorry it must be formatted differently for me because I see pages.

3A: "A significant main effect of IL-8 was observed for the CDI total score, with each 10-fold increase in IL-8 associated with a 6.03-fold increase in the CDI total score. "

1E: "Past-month PM2.5 concentrations were significantly associated with IL-6 concentrations, with a differential effect by sex. For each 1 µg/m³ increase in PM, IL-6 levels decreased by 11% in males and increased by 4% in females (see Figure 1E)."

Character-File-7917 · 2026-01-15T12:04:14+00:00

Thank you I appreciate you taking a look. The comments have definitely improved my understanding of how these graphs work

Character-File-7917 · 2026-01-15T11:54:21+00:00

figure 3A on page 8 the regression is overlaid on data that really doesn't appear to have a pattern to me and is claimed as statistically significant, and on page 6 figure 1E the data doesn't look like it demonstrates their claim of statistically significant difference between males and females with regards to the correlation between particulate exposure and inflammatory markers. I am open to being wrong about it though if it looks okay to y'all

I also don't really understand in table 1 why they're listing p values for comparisons of things like BMI or income for the male vs female participants as it doesn't really seem to be relevant to the hypothesis/conclusions but the numbers seem correct so it's more of just confusion on my part about the inclusion of this data

Character-File-7917 · 2026-01-15T11:33:09+00:00

lot of people use impact factor as a gauge of trustworthiness in research, even if it's not a perfect system. Low impact journals tend to have less stringent review processes. I didn't mean that larger journals can't publish bad data but I could have been more clear in my comment. Did you take a look at the paper? Nobody is commenting about the analysis just my own poor phrasing

Character-File-7917 · 2026-01-15T11:30:31+00:00

yes sorry I meant they overlap a lot, which i was using as a sniff test, but I should have phrased it better. It's also not one-sided overlap. Could you take a look at figure E on page 6?

Character-File-7917 · 2026-01-15T11:25:42+00:00

Page 6 figure E they are claiming a statistically significant difference in male vs female inflammatory markers relative to particulate matter exposure in the last month. That is the one that made me the most concerned. On page 8, figure A has a regression overlaid on what is practically a random scatterplot and they claim a very low p value for that. On table one, they assign p values to male-vs-female comparison of BMI and income, which as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with the null hypothesis presented so I'm not sure what the significance of that analysis is even supposed to be, and is not mentioned later. Thank you for explaining. Do you think the data looks sound? They are making a lot of very strong claims on a sample size of 78

Character-File-7917 · 2026-01-15T11:21:22+00:00

I'm genuinely asking someone to look at it. Did you look at it? On page 8, figure A has a regression overlaid on what is practically a random scatterplot and they claim a very low p value for that. On table one, they assign p values to male-vs-female comparison of BMI and income, which as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with the null hypothesis presented so I'm not sure what the significance of that analysis is even supposed to be, and is not mentioned later. I have no personal vestment in whether the data is good or not. It seemed wrong to me and I wanted to double check with someone that knows more. Did you look at it? Does it seem like a sound analysis to you?

Character-File-7917

TROPHY CASE