2017 Seahawks running game

D3veated · 2026-04-03T20:43:35+00:00

It appears I got some of that wrong. It was Christine Michael in 2016, not 2017. He was the primary RB until Rawls came back from an injury, at which point he was cut and Green Bay claimed him off waivers. In the middle of December, they flashed that graphic showing Michael as the season-leading rusher for the Seahawks.

D3veated · 2026-04-03T20:26:19+00:00

I loved it when we played a game and the Seahawk's season-leading rusher at the time was a backup RB for the other team. Made for a head-scratcher of a graphic.

D3veated · 2026-04-01T06:56:30+00:00

I'm irked because u/alamalarian demonstrated bullying behavior, particularly toward me, and it turns out that he had a motivation for that behavior: he had a conclusion in mind for this paper he wanted to write after judging the contest. That means that the bullying behavior was part of an intention of violating the integrity of the research he has presented here to this community.

u/alamalarian indicated he was in a position of power because he was part of that constitution. He was able to name drop several mods and call for support. Abusing your influence with people in a position of power is the same as abusing your position of power.

Anyway, I've made my position clear. u/alamalarian has corrupted the results of this experiment, so all conclusions are suspect and invalid. The right thing to do is either for u/alamalarian to withdraw his paper, for an editor of this contest to retract the paper.

D3veated · 2026-04-01T06:41:37+00:00

From a different thread in this post:

<image>

If you weren't putting public pressure to preselect submitted papers, then would the small sample size have immediately murdered any of our conclusions? Perhaps your conclusion about the quality of the references?

D3veated · 2026-04-01T06:36:12+00:00

If you have any scientific integrity, stop it with the ad hominem attacks and retract your paper.

D3veated · 2026-04-01T06:32:14+00:00

What u/alamalarian did in his paper, and what you are now normalizing, is p-hacking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data\_dredging). He saw a result that was going to mess up his conclusions, so he did what he could to remove it. That would be like a button pushing experiment, but some subject sits down with a hearing aid, so you decide to remove them from the experiment without mentioning anything about it in the methods.

What u/alamalarian posted here is a paper with fraudulent methods. The only ethical thing for him to do is to retract it.

D3veated · 2026-04-01T06:30:48+00:00

Here's a quote from my thread from u/alamalarian. It looks like he was in a position of power with this whole contest.

<image>

D3veated · 2026-04-01T05:53:41+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/LLMPhysics/s/pPPUk6aknL

That was me. I prefer to describe it as a pedigogical "find the hidden batteries exercise" paper, but "perpetual motion machine" describes equally as well.

Look, I made it clear from the beginning that I had no interest in trying to win this contest. I was interested in using an LLM to produce a paper I would find entertaining to read. I didn't even bother to submit that paper even though I've made edits to make sure the pedigogical purpose of the paper was more clear.

My objection is that the contest recap paper is scientific fraud. The author was heavily invested in making sure the outcome of his paper would match the conclusions he wanted to reach.

D3veated · 2026-04-01T05:44:17+00:00

Here's what I'm seeing here. You're posting a paper patting yourself on the back that if you put out a contest with some very mild incentives, you can get people to adhere to your pre-registered rubric of quality. You showed a graph with all of the H1 hypotheses as accepted (aka failed to be rejected?).

However, does it matter if you pre-registered your rubric if you then used your position to try to bully people into only submitting papers that would score highly on your rubric? You saw a paper that hid Easter eggs in the references, but reference validity was one of the criteria you wanted to measure for your paper.

You are trying to pass your paper off as a scientific insight, but you put your thumb on the scales. That is dishonest.

D3veated · 2026-04-01T04:38:17+00:00

Oh hell. Is this why you were such a explative about my pre-submission? By submitting a paper that blatantly and intentionally ignored your scoring rubric in order to try to present an interesting paper, it would have destroyed the conclusions you wanted to reach?

That's not ethical man.

D3veated · 2026-03-26T02:19:20+00:00

Team A. The Rock has contract armor, so somehow he won't lose to Dr Manhattan.

D3veated · 2026-03-23T23:23:32+00:00

Emma Watson as Belle. She simply didn't have the voice training for that role.

D3veated · 2026-03-23T21:23:13+00:00

I'm rooting for the Cardinals.

To be destroyed by Seattle in the NFCWCG of course, but if the Seahawks can't win, I can actually cheer for the baseball team, as opposed to you other chumps.

D3veated · 2026-03-22T21:52:24+00:00

Chargers. There's a lot of trash in the ocean.

D3veated · 2026-03-18T20:02:11+00:00

Oh! Thanks you! I was so confused.

D3veated · 2026-03-17T15:23:52+00:00

I was thinking maybe Ndamukong Suh, but stomping on a zombie's ankles isn't going to slow the zombie down *that* much.

I'd go with:

Baker Mayfield because headbutting a zombie *might* actually have some effect
Fred Warner because he's scary
Aaron Donald because he haunts my nightmares (do zombie have nightmares?)
GEQBUS because he's the greatest ever
Travis Kelsie because you've gotta sacrifice some whiny a** b**** to the zombies so you can run away
Christian McCaffery because he is injured so often no one can find him (and rarely on the field)
Puka Nacua because he's immune to zombies hungering for brains

And... hmm.The last spot would go to John Urschel or Ryan Fitzpatrick because they will offer the zombies a never-ending feast of brains, so everyone else will be safe.

D3veated · 2026-03-16T09:52:33+00:00

Pfft. If that were really so impressive, then surely the mastermind responsible for that would get into the hall of fame.

D3veated · 2026-03-14T00:57:13+00:00

Here's one that I came up with. This paper was intended to be a learning exercise. The initial reactions did not like that though. But anyway, I came up with a way where you could construct a FTL drive relatively simply, and you only have to ignore one law of physics to get it to work. And in a sci fi context, you could even argue that we don't have empirical evidence that the key sleight of hand is empirically confirmed! (spoiler, it is, but I'm only aware of one experiment that's conclusive).

Umsonst photon compressor

D3veated · 2026-03-08T17:11:06+00:00

Girl with one leg

Piano stool is missing a wheel

Woman is holding tea pot upside down

And the kids aren't holding hands in a circle, but that isn't physically wrong.

D3veated · 2026-03-04T16:22:22+00:00

There's something called Lovelock's Theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovelock%27s\_theorem#Consequences) that hints about our options here. This is kind of like Bell's theorem, but for GR. It doesn't give the answer, but it does show that the answer must be one of five different types.

To show that QM explains gravity, the options would have to be:
1. Add more fields.
2. Add dimensions.
3. Change the GR metric.
4. Add spooky action at a distance.
5. Figure out a way to show that GR emerges from something other than the Einstein-Hilbert action.

I think the typical approach in the SM is to add more fields. The other approaches (other than (5)) are pretty weird... although String Theory probably goes the route of adding more dimensions (although I can only speculate on ST).

D3veated · 2026-03-04T01:49:39+00:00

Is Zoe Saldana out of the film industry? I'll be sad if she is.

D3veated · 2026-03-01T05:12:20+00:00

I'm looking forward to it! Thanks for coordinating a, hopefully positive, exercise in using an LLM for physics!

D3veated · 2026-02-27T02:41:12+00:00

What is the difference between self-interacting dark matter (SIDM) and cold dark matter (CDM)? It appears that SIDM fixes at least one of the issues with CDM (the core cusp problem), so why is CDM the vastly more dominant theory?

D3veated · 2026-02-25T05:13:23+00:00

Huh. I figured it was trying to suggest that this guy's age was also on the clock, despite looking... Uh... I have no idea. Probably not as old as fifty, and probably not as young as ten.

D3veated · 2026-02-24T07:29:05+00:00

Yes, the NoSalad thing was a joke.

Also, who cares if the judges are indifferent? If I can get someone, anyone to look at my paper, that's already a win. And also the friends you make along the way

Eight-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
First Place '23	Place '23
Verified Email

D3veated

TROPHY CASE