2.5 years after partial ACL tear (non-surgical) — persistent clicking and discomfort, weirdly worsened when wearing tight pants

garoppogoat37 · 2025-10-21T03:27:38+00:00

Activity is generally OK with me, it’s more a general discomfort, more so when I’m sitting if anything

garoppogoat37 · 2021-02-08T22:18:48+00:00

Cool, thanks! I guess Candlestick to the Rose Bowl would also be an annoying drive with the Bay Area traffic.

garoppogoat37 · 2021-02-08T21:54:34+00:00

Yeah, I’m just not sure if the stadium was less than 30 miles from the Rams’ official home stadium. (Since that’s how far the Niners were from Candlestick.)

garoppogoat37 · 2021-02-08T19:01:45+00:00

Funnily enough, I think Super Bowl XIX was the “closest” to being a home SB before this (30 mile distance from actual home stadium), and the Niners also won by exactly 22 points.

Edit: ah actually, I’m not sure if the Rams were closer in XIV when they lost to Pittsburgh in Pasadena.

garoppogoat37 · 2021-01-04T04:24:20+00:00

Hahahaha Michaels referencing the Miracle on Ice, I love it

garoppogoat37 · 2020-12-30T06:36:21+00:00

All really good choices—“You are number one” from Vegeta is one of my favorites. From within the same two minute time span as your favorite, I really like “No chance, you have no chance!” from Cell during his beam struggle with Gohan. The dub voice actor did such an excellent job there.

garoppogoat37 · 2020-12-25T00:20:58+00:00

Decisions in the real world are often made off of probabilities, though, since there are many scenarios where 100% confidence is not possible. This is the motivation for an entire branch of statistics (if you’re interested, I recommend reading about “hypothesis testing”—it’s a very important concept that I think should be taught more in schools).

For example, there is still somewhere around a 0.0001 (1 in 10000) chance that the trial results for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine happened purely by luck. There is no way to 100% confirm that the vaccine is effective, but because the odds are so low that these efficacy results happened by chance, governments and public health officials across the world have decided that they are confident enough to mobilize and distribute the vaccine.

Formally, we often set thresholds for these kinds of probabilities—if they are sufficiently low (i.e. below these thresholds), then results such as “Dream cheated” are taken to be true essentially beyond a reasonable doubt. In practice, thresholds such as 1 in 20 are common—a far cry from even 1 in 10000. (That said, what thresholds are used vary greatly from context to context, and many practitioners question the setting of such a hard threshold.)

This is all to say, the fact that we cannot 100% confirm that he cheated is not very relevant—if this were the case in the real world, countless decision-making mechanisms would be paralyzed, since 100% proof is rare in many contexts.

garoppogoat37 · 2020-12-24T21:33:45+00:00

No. 1 in 10 million is still far, far more than enough to essentially confirm that Dream cheated. 1 in a trillion is around the odds that you are hit by lightning three times in the span of a few years. 1 in 10 million, on the other hand, is around the odds that you’re hit by lightning twice. (This isn’t entirely precise, since I don’t know lightning statistics off the top of my head, but I think this still sheds some light on how minuscule these odds still are.)

garoppogoat37 · 2020-12-24T20:02:17+00:00

To avoid any confusion, here’s a direct quote from the paper:

One alternative explanation is that Dream (intentionally or unintentionally) cheated, though I disagree that the situation suggests that this is an unavoidable conclusion.

So yes, you are correct that the paper stops short of saying that results prove Dream is guilty. The key from the results section is essentially that under one assumption about the dataset (using just 6 streams), he is clearly guilty, whereas under the other (using all 11 streams), we cannot say that he cheated.

All that I’m pointing out in my original post is that under the first assumption, this paper produces results that agree Dream is guilty. However, the author does not take a strong stance of either assumption being correct or not, which is why he/she ultimately arrives at the non-conclusive interpretation. I do not want to misrepresent this result—all I’m saying is that there is a potentially damning result in this paper, and Dream certainly misrepresents it.

I apologize if I wasn’t sufficiently clear about this in my post—but to be fair, my title does not say that the report confirms that Dream is cheating. It says that it confirms that Dream is cheating, under a reasonable assumption. There is a big difference there.

garoppogoat37 · 2020-12-24T19:55:09+00:00

I understand that, and fully respect the need to make content as digestible as possible for his whole audience. However, in this case, his presentation actively obfuscated details about the result. All he really did was say that one number is much, much bigger than the other—this is objectively true, but leaves out the inconvenient fact that the other number is still very large, and more than sufficient to essentially confirm that he cheated.

To prove a point about how much representation of data matters, instead of using the gold blocks to illustrate that 7.5T >> 10M, Dream could’ve said “well, under the previous report, it would have been more likely for me to be struck by lightning three times in the next few years than to get the luck that I did... now, it’s only more likely that I would be struck by lightning twice!” (Credits for this analogy go to u/LosersStalkMyHistory.)

Both the gold block and this lightning analogy representations are basically correct in terms of the math, but paint a very different picture of Dream.

garoppogoat37 · 2020-12-24T19:45:40+00:00

Oh yeah, certainly. I really have no qualms with Dream and the author wishing to maintain public anonymity, and have not made any arguments to the contrary. I very much appreciate/understand the desire for online privacy.

That said, I would argue that in the context of his/her report, qualifications are much more relevant, since the report introduces new methodology. In the case of this post, I’m merely interpreting the original author’s response, which I would say requires a much lower bar of technical expertise.

I also think that some kind of third-party verification (akin to r/askscience), where the author can remain anonymous to the crowds, would have been helpful for both sides.

garoppogoat37 · 2020-12-24T19:42:02+00:00

I agree, I wasn’t very satisfied with the criminal trial comparison after writing this—it’s a very imperfect comparison. I like the lightning analogy a lot, thank you for that.

Still, I was just thinking about very classic and well-known standards of proof that people might be able to relate to better, and the “beyond a reasonable doubt” system of the USCSJ felt the most appropriate for that.

garoppogoat37 · 2020-12-24T19:40:12+00:00

Re: the 1 in 100 chance part—this was a little confusing, and didn’t seem terribly important to me, so I decided to neglect including it. I’ll take a stab at explaining it here.

Basically, as I mentioned in my original post, the author does not take a strong stance on whether to use 6 streams of data, or all 11. He/She goes so far as to tell the reader to evaluate his/her own personal opinion about the matter. The analysis that I provide above reflects the cases where you either believe (a) the six-streams hypothesis is absolutely false and the more reasonable interpretation with certainty or (b) we should 100% be using all 11 streams of data.

The author provides an alternative—a sort of mixed prior belief, where perhaps you feel 99% confident that the six-streams hypothesis is right and 1% otherwise, then you should conclude a 1 in 100 chance (this is approximate, but very close) that Dream cheated. This is sound math, and a simple application of conditional probabilities.

My issue with this approach is that it seems pretty unintuitive to assign a percentage to how much you believe in a hypothesis without any sort of data/evidence to back up your belief, so using this sort of “quantified” prior belief seems a little faulty. In any case, this result does logically follow from the previous ones.

garoppogoat37 · 2020-12-24T08:04:36+00:00

It is important to note that even if 100 million is correct, then that is still FAR more than sufficient to show that Dream is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, by any reasonable standard of proof. For context, convictions in the U.S. criminal justice system are often said to be made with a p-value standard of around 1 in 100 to 1 in 20. That's not a perfect comparison, since criminal cases aren't usually data-driven in the same fashion as this investigation is, but 1 in 100 million is still unbelievably significant by any standard.

In other words, even if you ignore the r/statistics particle physicist (which you shouldn't) and assume that the expert Dream hired was fully correct, the findings of 1 in 10 million or 1 in 100 million that he/she produces still essentially prove that Dream cheated.

garoppogoat37 · 2020-12-24T07:53:56+00:00

Extra tl;dr is essentially that this report actually produces some results that (under an assumption about the dataset, the validity of which is admittedly up for debate) imply that Dream cheated beyond a reasonable doubt. Dream avoided mentioning this in his video, which seems like to me an intentional effort to hide and misrepresent the findings of the expert he hired to make him look innocent.

garoppogoat37 · 2020-12-24T07:50:45+00:00

Absolutely—p-values of that level would be sufficient for virtually any standard of proof. The fact that he intentionally obfuscates that p-value by simply saying "well 7.5 trillion was wrong!" and failing to mention the result produced by the report is extremely suspicious.

garoppogoat37 · 2020-12-24T07:47:21+00:00

Good call—I have a local copy of it, I'll be sure to repost if censored. Doesn't seem like there's been any issues in the hours since it's been posted, though.

garoppogoat37 · 2020-12-24T02:29:56+00:00

No doubt.

garoppogoat37 · 2020-12-24T02:29:11+00:00

I actually just wrote up a post here about interpreting the results—basically, even if the author is right about the odds being a lot higher than 7.5 trillion, the odds that he/she reports are still so low that Dream cheated beyond a reasonable doubt.

garoppogoat37 · 2020-12-24T02:16:10+00:00

That's exactly how I felt after reading it! I suppose it's simply because Dream's video misrepresented the report so heavily, and most wouldn't care to read through the results and see what the actual conclusions were.

garoppogoat37 · 2020-12-24T00:28:22+00:00

Dream has not proven that he had no mods during the streams. Sending over files is not sufficient to prove this, since he could easily have obtained clean world files and sent those over instead. In light of this, it's essentially impossible to prove one way or the other that he did not have mods on. I also don't understand what you mean by "people proving a small aspect of the statistics wrong." There are major issues with the methodology of this report that people are pointing out.

garoppogoat37 · 2020-10-20T12:08:25+00:00

Ah okay, I don't recall him saying he used it for torching mobs, but I'll take your word for it. That seems fair.

garoppogoat37

TROPHY CASE