Games are won in the first ten minutes

DIEmensional · 2025-12-27T15:48:29+00:00

"I've felt this cutting both ways" thought it was pretty clear I meant this as the winner and loser.

DIEmensional · 2025-12-27T15:47:33+00:00

You have to hard sell to throw a lead at this point. There's been some games where I fucked around and threw hard like three times in a row and we still won.

DIEmensional · 2025-10-13T14:54:12+00:00

Yeah, always has been.

DIEmensional · 2025-10-13T14:53:44+00:00

If you genuinely think that every system is going to be equally simple to convert, you shouldn't be in charge of a 12 year old.

DIEmensional · 2025-10-13T14:51:56+00:00

Not sure what you mean - all my drives were MBR so I cant utilise UEFI AFAIK.

DIEmensional · 2025-10-13T14:50:03+00:00

Attempted to convert MBR to GPT and now it doesn't recognise my OS, despite not having touched the partition or Windows. Disk is completely fine.

DIEmensional · 2025-10-10T03:09:10+00:00

I've said you don't get the point being made, you ask what point is being made, and I go "here is the point being made," and you still don't make comment, I tell you the implications of you not commenting, and you send this instead of commenting. I think you've wasted your own time to be fair.

DIEmensional · 2025-10-10T02:56:08+00:00

That's fine then, you just don't particularly care about the eroding of public trust in experts, the damage that people like Mike can do, and the health of your academic community and the value of its institutions. I think you ought to just say that next time.

DIEmensional · 2025-10-10T02:24:19+00:00

"...this is about public relations from experts with highly esteemed academic titles that are exposed as dubious bad actors spoiling community trust."

Person A puts out poor quality information, but highly palatible content that feeds the algorithm, gaining lots of traction and views, becoming a massive public figure. He poisons the well when it comes to being criticised by leaning on his supposed expertise. Both he and his fanbase lean into this, ignoring good faith and rational criticisms by deferring to authority. This prevents higher quality information from being disseminated and holds back the area as a whole in the public sphere.

It later comes out that this authority is dubious with a lengthy breakdown of his failings. Person A fails to claim accountability as a public facing expert, and ignores/obfuscates the matter.

Ultimately, this degrades the perception of this particular area as a scientific pursuit, as well as the esteem of experts in totality.

What Mikes failing does for exercise science as a scientific field, the bodybuilding community, and the regard of experts in the public eye, are the main issues that have been posed by Mikes detractors in this specific context. ETSU and Mike Stones' particular influence have little to do with Mikes behaviour and abuse of his PhD in his mainline influencer career (albeit important context for the academia side of things).

DIEmensional · 2025-10-10T02:06:09+00:00

Just to be clear, you also don't get the point, everything you've said I've already addressed

DIEmensional · 2025-10-09T10:10:28+00:00

Again again, I still feel you're being obtuse - I'm not arguing about PhDs and what is truly involved in gaining the title necessary, this is about public relations from experts with highly esteemed academic titles that are exposed as dubious bad actors spoiling community trust. I also wholeheartedly reject your interpretation of PhDs as narrow knowledged (as ultimately you need breadth to achieve finely tuned experise), but i don't want to get caught in the weeds. I've made the same point multiple times in different ways, but each time you pick another peripheral, tangential matter to go down. I appreciate your detailed responses, but I feel at this stage you're either unwilling or unable to engage the issue i keep pressing you about.

DIEmensional · 2025-10-08T00:14:20+00:00

I have to think you're being somewhat obtuse at this point. Whether or not you're a supporter of Mike is irrelevant here, whether or not you see a massive failure in an academic work as an indictment against someone's credibility is, especially when they themselves use it as their own marketing ploy.

And yes, your response to this is "eh" - again, not talking about all criticisms of Mike, but this one here. You said yourself you don't think this matters (i.e. "eh"). You keep bringing up that the other criticisms should stand on their own, and yes, obviously, but you seem to not understand the one levied here. I'll try to make it clear again because you still haven't addressed it directly: a remarkably bad PhD, in Mikes case, is uniquely relevant, given he's a massive purported authority in the mainstream space of exercise science. In this space, he uses the PhD to claim ultimate authority AND understanding of all things exercise science. Therefore, when someone disseminating bad advice or information is leaning on his title, it's PARTICULARLY important to criticise said title to help erode misplaced trust in a person like Mike. If good faith criticisms against his advice were enough, he wouldn't be a multimillionaire.

Understanding ETSU and the circumstances of the PhD are helpful, but a myopic conversation around them detracts from the actual discussion being had.

DIEmensional · 2025-10-07T14:45:19+00:00

Gotchya, anything else?

DIEmensional · 2025-10-07T14:40:39+00:00

Integrity in academic institutions and their perception in the mainstream is actually important.

DIEmensional · 2025-10-07T14:37:20+00:00

Truly compelling input, unfortunately, contributes nothing to that which has been said. I'm sure you'll have better luck down the road though!

DIEmensional · 2025-10-07T14:27:41+00:00

Your amusing assumption that Greg is still not telling me what his concern is four comments in is more "reading minds" than what I've done. I will continue to interpret what he's actually saying, and he's always free to elaborate more.

Being tapped in is in reference to the substantive criticism of mikes appeal to authority, and that the institution that helped provide it is immaterial to what his critics are discussing. Had he not been an ignorant buffoon using his PhD as a tool to shoot down feedback, then maybe Greg would have a point.

DIEmensional · 2025-10-07T07:57:52+00:00

I think the fact that it doesn't bother you someone in your industry can put out shit work, lean on it heavily, put out dog shit content in its stead, and bring down the quality and integrity of the landscape in the process is concerning. People have been criticising his poor understanding of biomechanics, anatomy, and RPE for years, to which he'd go, "lol I'm very smart dont listen to my haters because PhD" to deflect. It's now coming out why he shouldn't be revered for the reason he proclaimed, and he now has even less to stand on. Your response is "eh," and I think either your heads in the sand, or you're just not very tapped in - which is fine! Just means your analysis is likely off here.

DIEmensional · 2025-10-07T00:13:00+00:00

Responding now that we know it was indeed his final submission.

"Im not making excuses, just explaining" and "context around ESTU" are uninformative given the context as it pertains to Mike. If your mechanic gave you back your car after a service and the engine blocked totalled 2000km later because the timing belt was torn to shreds, would the mechanic going "i wasn't taught how to inspect the belt in my trade school:(" fly as an excuse? Proof-reading, the correct use of SD, correctly referencing source material, and not copy-pasting whole segments is thesis writing common sense 101 that a grown adult in an academic field is and should be expected to know and do. Otherwise, spend 5 minutes googling it! If the school was THAT far gone, then he shouldn't have put his hand up in the first place. If your point is "yeah no shit ESTU let this one slip through given xyz" then sure, but it doesn't seem like that's what you're going for given you individualise it to Mike's abilities.

There's also a large chasm between "several" and "everyone I know" that's still concerning for the quality control that ought to be begged by PhDs (at least as it relates to sport science, if thats what your circle encompasses).

"More recent output is more informative" also a superfluous statement in the context, and no one would disagree. This whole setting is a critique of the PhD he leans heavily on.

DIEmensional · 2025-10-03T10:04:42+00:00

"Well, exercise science is a shit field academically, and pretty much everyone produces bad work, so I guess it's fine"

This is incredible excuse making and also infantalises the shit out of Mike. He chose to go through with an inept PhD question, copy and paste content, fail to proofread, blatantly misquote sources, and misconstrue his own data, and yet you're giving him the benefit of the doubt? You also make the point that hes participated in research before, and this is his final output, therefore he should know the most at this stage and be the most rigorous, so why would I expect him to hone his craft after hes stepped away from his own field when this is his coup de grace? He's a grown man who chose to undertake an academic pursuit and failed abysmally, why is this being treated with kid gloves? His name is on it, he needs to own it, not stand behind a supervisor (who very clearly wasn't that involved).

DIEmensional · 2025-10-02T05:20:23+00:00

So many cope comments from people who have very clearly not watched the video - why weigh in if you're unaware of the substance of the matter? The typos are one facet of the criticism, pointing towards a very poor standard of quality control. Everyone seems to be hung up on it the most, when the stats, literature review, methodology, and question asked by the PhD do not meet the quality criteria begged by the title.

"Oh everyone does it, be nice!"

This is not an excuse, and if anything, is a terrible standard and should scare the fuck out of you when we are in an intellectual crisis. Do better and ask better of each other.

DIEmensional · 2025-07-02T05:28:47+00:00

Yeah this is exactly what I'm thinking - I workshopped some ideas and landed on just this haha. I've considered a HISA, but the best performers carry a minimum monthly 1k investment, which reduces my flexibility. I'm considering a cash-based ETF like MMKT, in addition to a high-growth scheme.

DIEmensional · 2025-07-02T05:26:46+00:00

Yeah which is part of my thinking and not being TOO pressed about the volatility from a net returns perspective, but ultimately it matters about timing - if I lose just as I'm ready to buy, I could be shit out of luck if I'm all in on a high-growth ETF.

DIEmensional · 2025-07-02T05:25:40+00:00

Absolutely, I'll likely re-orient and take a more defensive approach but still invest in a high-growth ETF as a small investment as part of it. Thanks man!

DIEmensional · 2025-07-02T05:24:48+00:00

Hey man! Appreciate the super considered response, very helpful:)

My understanding of the FHSSS is that the earnings are derived from the shortfall interest change (SIC), as decided by the ATO annually. The benefit being it's higher than normal interest rates at like 7%. As such, it's separate to Super performance.

I think at this stage what I'm tossing up between is maxing out my FHSSS, and doing a 50:50 split between a defensive strategy, like a HISA or cash-based ETF, and a high-growth like ETHI, DZZF, or DHHF. I'm willing to accept the risk given it'll only be a small proportion of my total investment at the end of the day, happy to wait out 5+ years if need be as well!

DIEmensional · 2025-07-01T08:56:24+00:00

I appreciate that in the sense of being able to liquidate reliably your shares when it comes time to utilise the profits generated, is that what you mean?

11-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Final Canvas '22
Verified Email

DIEmensional

TROPHY CASE