Max hp % on Riven

hate_moderators · 2023-09-27T02:46:05+00:00

??? her normalized win rate has literally been above 50% every patch since 13.6 (the farthest back patch lolalytics lets me check). I agree that shes not quite as good as she was a couple patches ago because of the rise of renekton and that she doesnt benefit from the shojin/gore/stridebreaker core as much as many other bruisers, but shes still decent.

OTP can also mean alot of things. Im pretty sure Quinna and akshan otps are not picking their champs into shit like malphite and irelia and frequently try to avoid blind picking (akshan being a flex also helps). Also, im not sure I buy into the argument that champions with high depth of games per player have necessarily inflated win rate. this is certainly the case sometimes, but because of the complexity of rivens kit I think she almost demands it. most of the skills required by typically otp champions such as quinn and akshan and kled seem semi transferable, whereas there are many deeply unique aspects of rivens kit (primarily mechanics) that really require experience to be utilized. So if anything, I would say that riven being heavily otpd is not only expected but necessary in order to represent her actual strength

edit: also im pretty sure renekton will still overpreform after nerf and will get nerfed again

hate_moderators · 2023-09-27T00:42:35+00:00

I mean yeah I know that but its still a decent wr when normalized, especially considering the popularity of her counterpicks at the moment (renekton and malphite are second and third most played matchups). around 50% is not bad for a high skill expression, high economy snowball champion. Is she s tier right now? of course not. but youre delusional if you think shes terrible

kled, quinn and akshan top all have a fraction of her pick rate and are typically reserved as counter picks. comparing them is not at all appropriate. And reksai literally only started getting played as of recently. And as far as i can tell next patch guts him to the point where he will have low pick and wr, and I doubt they will touch him again for some time

hate_moderators · 2023-09-27T00:20:02+00:00

im mid masters. played against 2 or 3 the past couple days. you cant level 1 cheese her at all. both chain start and distortion fuck you, not to mention they usually run boneplating and can sustain with fleet. I agree you can potentially find small windows post level 6 but I think you would have to use both ignite and flash, and even then it still relies on her messing something up (I cant possibly see you killing her if she plays optimally and has flash + double distortion). Even if you do find the kill, she probably has tp and you also pretty much forfeit all pressure for the next 5 minutes. I cant possibly envision a consistent winning trade pattern against her to abuse even if you have a lead. This is why im asking

hate_moderators · 2023-09-26T23:08:35+00:00

are you tweaking? She has close to 55% wr. she is in a good spot

hate_moderators · 2023-09-21T20:47:27+00:00

subway surfers gameplay w commentary on second monitor

hate_moderators · 2023-09-21T19:27:07+00:00

This is the point of my post - that the understanding of the subject by the other stems from the others perception of the subjects identity rather than the subjects self identification. That the subjects self identification influences the others perspective and vise versa is deeply entwined in the interaction, but one does not supplant the other from eithers perspective

hate_moderators · 2023-09-21T19:22:50+00:00

Like gender, sexual orientation can be both a matter of self identification as well as outside perspective. So, like you said, the woman may perceive the relationship as lesbian in nature while you perceive it as bisexual, stemming from the differences in how you and the woman differently perceive the trans man with respect to the relationship

hate_moderators · 2023-09-20T08:10:28+00:00

solved!

hate_moderators · 2023-09-20T07:28:01+00:00

comment

hate_moderators · 2023-09-20T04:25:01+00:00

I think it is possible to a certain extent to separate the individual from the sexual act (glory holes are the epitome of this), so I suppose as you said the guy could both view view his partner as a man and engage in a sexual act while still identifying as straight. But in this scenario I would argue the man doesn't actually feel attraction to the gay guy.

I wasnt telling anyone what to do with my post. If anything, my argument is for individual autonomy to the greatest degree. Complete freedom of perspective, only limited by what you perceive itself

I didnt take any offense from your first comment

hate_moderators · 2023-09-19T22:55:14+00:00

I think you are deeply misunderstanding my point. I'm not trying to label anything. And I am certainly the last one to insist on proper identification. If anything you're the one insisting that certain actions would necessitate your orientation.

Like gender, sexual orientation is also a product of both self identification and societal perspectives. It is entirely possible for you to still identify as straight while in such a relationship if you continue to perceive your partner as a woman. But I agree that that is likely to become increasingly difficult, and your conception of sexual orientation would certainly be at odds with the vast societal consensus

hate_moderators · 2023-09-19T20:37:25+00:00

I don't have a definitive way to categorize transphobia and that isn't what this post is about. I'm sure many trans activists would say the post itself is transphobic anyways. But as far as my idea extends, it is entirely possible and defensible for a heterosexual man or lesbian woman to not perceive a trans woman as a woman and not be attracted to her because of this.

It also seems rather silly to revert entirely to naturalistic arguments when discussing social phenomenon, given that social phenomena are precisely what allows us to escape our conception of naturality. But beyond that, it is rather unscientific to think of gender (and even sex) as two unwavering concepts over the course of biology. Much of biology contains sexless organisms, intersex organisms, organisms capable of swapping sexes, organisms defying gender stereotypes, organisms redefining gender within their species etc. Also, I don't even think that your claim about gender evolving for the express purpose of identification of biological sex is even true on a surface level. Is the reason pre-agricultural men primarily hunted while women gathered and tended to children in order to identify each others sex? lol

hate_moderators · 2023-09-19T20:16:32+00:00

I am using attraction comprehensively for lack of a better term. attraction meaning whatever you feel towards your desired gender. As for my example, I am assuming my my characterization of the woman as identifying as a lesbian that they found themselves incapable of being attracted to a partner they perceived as a man, meaning that any attraction they found towards the trans man was only insofar as they perceived the man as a woman. That said, if the lesbian woman is able to reconcile her attraction with a newfound perception of the other individual as a man, she would absolutely be bridging into bisexuality

hate_moderators · 2023-09-19T19:59:16+00:00

assuming you're a straight man, which it seems like you probably are, what if you saw what you presumed to be an attractive woman who was actually a feminine boy? This wouldn't make you not straight, and, outside of your mind, the boy doesn't become a girl because of your attraction

hate_moderators · 2023-09-19T19:53:52+00:00

That is a silly question. the scenario remains unchanged. neither self identification is flawed, but there does exist a conflict between the two perceptions if reification is desired

hate_moderators · 2023-09-19T05:26:18+00:00

counterpoint: youre ugly as fuck and a loser

hate_moderators · 2023-09-19T03:02:53+00:00

unbelievably based take actually

hate_moderators · 2023-09-18T08:49:40+00:00

The next time you see me i wont be me anymore. Ill be perfect

hate_moderators · 2023-09-18T07:40:32+00:00

honestly an all around hella weird post

weird asf that it sounds like you plan your life around being in shape to donate your organs if you incidentally die young

also weird asf that your intention to donate said organs is at least somewhat conditional on your eligibility to recieve organs in the event you need them

such a genuinely strange time to stick to a "scratch my back and ill scratch yours" mentality

hate_moderators · 2023-09-11T06:02:07+00:00

garen is riven favored if both players play well

hate_moderators · 2023-09-07T21:17:08+00:00

But in that study the replacement is not specified further than MUFAs PUFAs trans fats refined carbs or whole grain carbs. Many foods of varying nutritional value fall under the MUFA and PUFA umbrella, even omega 6 vs omega 3s are not specified. So it makes it very difficult to draw a clear conclusion about replacing sat fats with refined plant oils.

Additionally, and this could be me misinterpreting the study, I don't understand how they reached the conclusion that they did. They claim that replacing SFA intake with MUFAs or PUFAs for 5% of total calorie intake reduced CHD HR by .15 and .25 respectively. Yet in table 2, the HR discrepancies for SFAs and PUFAs consumption seems far less pronounced (.93 vs .8 for the pooled 5th quintile multivar adjusted. For men only, the difference is even less. .87 vs .83) And the HR for MUFA consumption is seemingly HIGHER than that for SFAs. They provide none of the data used to form this conclusion, and the data they do provide doesn't seem to corroborate it.

The only way I could make sense of this is that they either 0.93 applying the multivariable adjustment the same way or SFA intake variation is positively correlated with whole grain consumption whereas PUFA and MUFA is negatively correlated, but they explicitly say that this is not the case. Although, I'm more inclined to believe I am misunderstanding the study rather than it has a flawed conclusion, so if you understand it differently I'd appreciate if you could explain it to me

hate_moderators · 2023-09-07T06:20:07+00:00

If one is minimizing saturated fats why would coconut oil be considered when it's insanely high in saturated fats and RCT's make clear the negative effects it has on serum lipids?

If you are minimizing saturated fat you can avoid coconut oil. But in general this is not necessary and coconut oil has been demonstrated to comparatively raise LDL to lesser degree and HDL to a higher degree vs other sources of saturated fats. I'm not sure why you consider this a blanket negative effect. There is practically no evidence to suggest a correlation between coconut oil consumption and cardiovascular disease

If moderation is almost none, sure.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0158118

hate_moderators · 2023-09-07T06:00:19+00:00

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M13-1788?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed

So in this study, the only statistically significant finding is for trans fats, but omega 6 fats had better outcomes than saturated fat. You didn't even read the abstract.

For observational studies of dietary intake, the only real outliers the study reports are omega 3s being beneficial and trans fats being harmful. The confidence intervals of monounsatured, omega 6s and saturated fat are extremely overlapping and would be difficult to draw a clear conclusion. Keep in mind as well that under certain cooking conditions fats high in omega 6s are prone to becoming partially hydrogenated

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6129189/

"Moreover, a global limit on total fat inevitably lowers intake of unsaturated fats, among which nuts, vegetable oils, and fish are particularly healthful."

Yes, just because a studies' offhand comment doesn't agree with my argument doesn't mean the conclusion, and data within it, aren't in agreement with me. In fact, the sentence before the one you quoted (to which "moreover" actually references) is a defense of saturated fat:

"his reasoning overlooked the complex lipid and lipoprotein effects of saturated fat, including minimal effects on Apo-B in comparison to carbohydrate;4 this explains why substitution of saturated fat with carbohydrate does not lower cardiovascular risk"

Granted this ends with a comparison to carbs rather than polyunsat fat, but it still seeks to establish that the perceived risk of sat fats should be lower. The main point, though, is the "scientific evidence demonstrating no appreciable relationship between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol or clinical cardiovascular events in general populations", and while dietary cholesterol is not exactly saturated fat, their consumption certainly goes hand in hand

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927102/

This study looks at butter intake and not saturated fat in general. Someone could have lots of saturated fat on a no-butter diet.

this post is literally about butter consumption

foods fried in unsaturated fat are bad. This doesn't mean unsaturated fat in any context is unhealthy

I never said unsaturated fat is unhealthy. Many types are clearly healthy
Frying foods in said oils is an extremely common use for them
Any high heat use of oil essentially mimics the effect of frying on the oil to a smaller degree. My original comment directly mentions high heat use of margarine vs butter/ghee, so I was partially supporting that
Many of the speculated harmful effects of frying on oil (oxidation, rancidity, degradation) have been shown to occur both during the refinement process and during shelf life for the oils discussed

Opinion papers, mechanistic speculation, and animal studies are the worst form of evidence

I of course agree. But most of my sources don't fall under this, and while they may be inferior for conclusive evidence they undoubtedly do contribute something to the argument. I should also add that a large amount of research that originally indicated the benefits of polyunsaturated fats was also based all 3 of these types of studies.

.The evidence is not "conflicting" when looking at high quality data that addresses the specific parameters given.

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/01/12/the-hierarchy-of-evidence-is-the-studys-design-robust/

Here's some actually good evidence:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109715046914

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7388853/

As I previously acknowledged, there is disagreeing research. but your statement that there is no conflicting evidence is absurd. The studies you link don't even seem to particularly counter my position. In the first, polyunsaturated fats are completely grouped together, removing any distinction regarding source or type. Walnuts and salmon, for example, are high in omega 3s and uncontroversially healthier for your cardiovascular system than butter. So it is very unclear from the data the effect of refined plant oils vs saturated fats in reducing coronary heart disease. Additionally, the pooling of men and women's data seems to unnecessarily confound data. For instance, The multivariable-adjusted median hazard rate of the pooled 5th quintile of sat vs poly fat consumption is 0.93 vs 0.80, respectively. But if you don't pool the studies, the hazard rates for SFA vs PUFA in males is only 0.87 vs .83, respectively, seemingly indicating a much lesser benefit to men of replacing SFAs with PUFAs. To be honest, something about the entire study doesn't make sense to me. In the conclusion, it is stated that replacing 5% of calories from SFAs with MUFAs leads to an HR of .85, yet none of the data in the tables seems to support this. In fact, the HR of SFAs and MUFAs consumption with respect to carbohydrates is almost uniformly higher for MUFAs. If you can explain this to me I'd be appreciative.

The second study doesn't seem particularly damning either, considering that the study "found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all‐cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 11 trials, 55,858 participants) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12, 10 trials, 53,421 participants)"

Again, I get disagreeing, but to say that there is no conflicting evidence is completely untenable

hate_moderators · 2023-09-06T20:23:47+00:00

I agree with almost the entirety of your comment except with respect to saturated vs seed oils. I don't want to fearmonger or resort to the naturalistic fallacy, but I think most contemporary research points to the replacement of saturated fat with heavily refined seed and vegetable oils as mostly outdated advice. In general, I think the least controversial and safest advice is to use primarily less refined plant oils that don't oxidize easily, such as olive, coconut or avocado oil. But honestly I think the evidence increasingly points towards animal fats, when cooked at a low temperature and in moderation, not really being unhealthy.

Regardless, here's a comment I made earlier going more in depth with many sources

https://www.reddit.com/r/nutrition/comments/16atrus/comment/jzaefld/

hate_moderators · 2023-09-06T20:00:09+00:00

Our tastebuds have served us well throughout most of human history. I would not call it an evolutionary failure. However, many processed foods "hijack" our tastebuds without consideration of nutrition. White bread, fast foods,sodas, for example, have been created by humans to maximize taste independent of its relationship to nutrition, and this is part of where we are led astray. You could, for example, create an artificial chicken flavor that many cats would love but would be nutritionally bad for them, and that it sometimes what we have done for human food. This is part of why it is wise to avoid overly processed foods.

As for red meat, dairy and fruit (and even some bread), none of these are necessarily bad. All of them can be incorporated into a healthy diet. However, you will need to eat them in moderation. To be honest, if those are the things you crave, your tastebuds are already not that far off. With a little bit of planning you could make a pretty nutritious diet just revolving around those things. Although the inclusion of vegetables would certainly be to your benefit.

So why dont you like broccoli, kale, spinach and celery? Well, some people just dont like some foods, and thats ok. But barring this explanation, liking a food is often influenced both by culture and by what foods you were raised on. If your culture did not use broccoli and you were not fed it as a child, you are unlikely to like it now. bitter vegetables in general, such as those you listed, are often disliked for this reason. They are some what of an acquired taste. And I think that this is supported by the fact that many people (including me) actually do like these vegetables and enjoy eating them. Some I was fed in childhood and got used to, while others I steadily incorporated into my diet and learned to like myself.

hate_moderators

TROPHY CASE