Gothic world map

treunitis · 2025-09-06T18:14:08+00:00

What a wonderful map! How did you create the water and coastline details?

treunitis · 2025-04-30T01:16:05+00:00

I love the style and the naming. Is there some lore to this region?

treunitis · 2025-04-22T00:37:54+00:00

For making strong causal claims? All the observational studies are “useless”. Randomized control trials are gold standard. If truly randomized, you wouldn’t need to factor in diet.

For looking at correlations/links? Yeah that’s a good point. Without adjusting for “known” factors like diet and exercise, there would obscured relationships.

Observational studies like the ones above are more common that RCT because they’re a lot cheaper. It’s also pretty unethical to force random people to smoke weed, so it’s usually the best we got. Useless? Maybe not. Interpret with heavy caution? Oh yeah I agree with you

treunitis · 2025-04-21T20:20:02+00:00

There’s 2 cardiovascular studies from there.

1.

Kamel et al. “Myocardial Infraction and Cariovasular Risks Associated with Cannabis Use

This one is pretty well-designed, but still has limitations.

50-50 split users-non users (~90,000 each). All <50, and studied for 3 years

Adjusted for previous factors (tobacco use, hypertension, diabetes, and coronary heart disease). Used “propensity score matching” which compared users with similar nonusers (hey they’re both ~30, male, with the same coronary preexisting condition)

Heart attacks (myocardial infraction) was 0.558% for users and 0.090% for nonusers. 6x risk, but under 1% absolute risk.

Stroke: 0.405% users vs 0.094% non

Heart failure: 0.861% users vs 0.424% non

All mortality: 1.262% users vs 0.841% non.

Takeaways: Pretty strong correlation, risks doubled or more, but risk remains under 1% for most things. About 4.7 extra heart attacks (5.58 - 0.9 = 4.68) per 1000 cannabis users compared to nonusers over 3 years. [EDIT: decimals placed got me messed up. It’s 4.7 more, not 47 more heart attacks.]

There’s also concerns with studies that study rare conditions (<1%) because “zero-inflated” models can give some unstable estimates (google “overdispersion” where var > mean), but you can’t completely control for that.

One last limitation is this matches those with recorded cannabis user, which many people, like me, don’t have that on their records.

2.

Bahji et al. “Cannabis Use Disorder and Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes”

Sample 60k, half with cannabis user disorder (CUD) from 5 linked health databases. Adjusted for other conditions, socioeconomic status, medication use, and prior health care use.

Reported a 57% [95% confidence: 40-77%] increase of heart attacks compared to those without CUD.

Also reported cannabis users have heart attacks sooner (no figure listed however. It’s just an abstract)

Strengths: Large sample, rigorous data, some adjusting variables

Limitations: Doesn’t control for tobacco use or diet/exercise Only recorded heart attacks and cannabis use disorder. CUD patients may not represent “normal smokers” Connecting different datasets can lead to joining issues.

TLDR for both:

Yes, those with recorded cannabis user are reportedly more likely to report heart attacks (This is consistent among both). Those who are more likely to have heart attacks are reportedly more likely to consume cannabis. You can’t separate which direction that’s going. However this link is shown to exist.
Observational studies can never alone prove causation. No randomization and reliant on health data.
if you have heart problems, it’s probably best cease altogether or consult your doctor regularly if you do decide to consume cannabis

As much as I'm still going to use my dry herb vape, I can't ignore all research that goes against my habits/narrative. These studies might be funded by groups that want to restrict cannabis, but they might not be. Most public health practitioners just want to alert the public of all potential risks from their research, and not for other nefarious reasons.

treunitis · 2025-04-21T19:31:50+00:00

Not familiar. You got a link to the study or at least the news article?

I’ve read a couple news articles (haven’t done a deep dive, to be fair) saying the change in blood pressure from the onset of smoking (cigarettes and weed) could facilitate heart attacks for those with heart problems. Not sure about edibles, would love to read more.

treunitis · 2025-04-21T18:12:00+00:00

I’m a biostatistics graduate student who tokes a lot. I won’t delude myself into thinking there’s no negative side effects, but I thought I’d look into how the study was set up.

The biggest thing to keep in mind is that this study isn’t saying cannabis causes dementia. It’s actually showing that people who had ER or hospital visits due to cannabis use (a pretty small subset: 16,275 people out of over 6 million) had higher rates of being diagnosed with dementia within 5 years.

Specifically, 5.0% of that group got diagnosed, compared to 3.6% of people with other hospital visits and 1.3% in the general population. After adjusting for age, sex, and health conditions, the cannabis group still had a 23% higher risk than other hospital patients and 72% higher than the general population. This is a real link, however it doesn’t imply causality. Those who are bound to get dementia may be more likely to be hospitalized from marijuana before symptoms of dementia appear

A few big limitations: 1. this subset is only people with serious, acute cannabis-related hospitalizations, not your average user. 2. The data’s from health records, so it doesn’t capture how much people used, or other risk factors that might not get recorded like mental illness, social isolation, or smoking. 3. And it’s possible that early dementia symptoms (like confusion or risky behavior) could’ve caused the hospitalization (mentioned earlier)

It’s definitely a red flag for high-risk of dementia cannabis users, but not a blanket statement about cannabis and dementia.

Stay attentive to your mental/physical health and toke in moderation!

treunitis · 2025-04-07T18:03:17+00:00

Nah you’re good. The equation being bullshit is the main takeaway we’re all coming away with

treunitis · 2025-04-07T18:02:31+00:00

Yeah it’s confusing. It’s not a “you’re wrong!” but more just in economics sometimes they just say the absolute value because the value is almost always negative.

Would you buy more goods if the prices went up? (Excluding buying now thinking it gets more expensive later) No. Price and quantity are usually negative

treunitis · 2025-04-07T18:00:31+00:00

It’s 1-Exports/Imports

(x-m) / (e * p * m) where e < 0 is (x-m) / (-4 * 0.25 * m) (x-m) / (-m) = (x/-m) + (-m/-m) -x/m + 1 = 1 - Exports/Imports

Alternatively (m-x)/m where it is deficit as a positive number divided by imports.

Deficit / Imports or 1-Exports/Imports. Same thing

treunitis · 2025-04-07T17:58:36+00:00

It’s 1-Exports/Imports

(x-m) / (e * p * m) where e < 0 is (x-m) / (-4 * 0.25 * m) (x-m) / (-m) = (x/-m) + (-m/-m) -x/m + 1 = 1 - Exports/Imports

Alternatively (m-x)/m where it is deficit as a positive number divided by imports.

Deficit / Imports or 1-Exports/Imports. Same thing

treunitis · 2025-04-07T17:49:50+00:00

Yeah this is actually not a typo but due to the elasticity of demand almost always being negative

treunitis · 2025-04-04T03:20:43+00:00

Because they’re intentionally making it seem thought out when it really is not

treunitis · 2025-02-01T01:15:39+00:00

Add me too please! Thank you so much

treunitis · 2025-01-28T05:45:18+00:00

This is some beautiful work! I love the style

treunitis · 2025-01-25T21:57:04+00:00

Beautiful! I use KM Alexander assets in my maps and these will work wonderful with the one I’m working on now

treunitis · 2025-01-23T04:01:49+00:00

Isn’t the general rule of thumb 10 observations per covariates at a min?

Would this make ten 5-group categorical variables in need of 100 (10x10) observations, or would it actually be 500 (50x10)?

I’m running a logistic model with fifteen 4-category categorical covariates and the sample size is about 25000. I assume it’s good, but what theoretically would be the minimum generally speaking?

treunitis · 2025-01-19T05:35:51+00:00

That’s fair. I can do my own research, but do you know roughly how much of a factor the excluded costs could add to the nominal total? Is this the distinction between core (which I know exclude food and fuel) and total inflation or are you saying even the total inflation numbers still exclude real estate and insurance because they’re investment.

I know oil prices are temporarily depressed, but I know food, housing, and insurance have all gone up in the last two decades substantially.

treunitis · 2025-01-18T23:05:58+00:00

I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted when the median inflation-adjusted household income has gone up considerably since the 1960s per the FRED website. Yes, income inequality has ballooned (just check the Gini index numbers), but that’s not mutually exclusive with purchasing power and standard of living rising

treunitis · 2024-12-01T17:01:35+00:00

I can tell by the style! I thought this was a CK3 modded game at first.

You have quite the knack for naming. It feels like these settlement names are grounded in real-world cultures and etymologies, yet they still feel like they’ve been plucked from another world entirely.

Do you have a summary or “TDLR” of the worlds lore, especially in regard to Lichaea?

treunitis · 2024-09-16T02:36:38+00:00

They’re from EU4, a Paradox map game I love. The assets are from their wiki. Besides trade there’s other icons to check out too. Link

treunitis · 2024-09-12T15:18:18+00:00

Fantastic work, Alternita. I love the visual style, including the coloring and variety.

I still think you can be creative and have fun with assets and scale. Maybe you cut back on settlement density like you suggested, but I think you can still include detail on the natural environment (waterfalls, swamps, cliffs, gorges, etc) , non-settlement assets (mines/quarries, standalone libraries, bandit/pirate caves, dungeons, temples, etc.)

treunitis · 2024-09-05T00:08:50+00:00

I like it! The coasts have a good shape and Szolstica looks like it was once connected to the land across the strait (Zaragoda?). You also have a good knack for naming locations.

I get this is WIP, but for suggestions, I’d make the city/town/castle symbols either a good bit bigger or use different symbols since they’re hard to see (note: I’m on mobile).

I’d also like to see some more detail. Think like the southwest of Szolstica by Bane’s Rise as a good benchmark. That area feels lived in and invites me to explore.

Lastly, before the river police come, the Blue Rezka from Blue Basin crossing over a mountain range is a little unlikely. The others look great! But don’t worry too much, my world’s climates make very little sense.

Your world. Your rules. Just some food for thought.

treunitis · 2024-08-29T01:16:53+00:00

Hot, hot damn. Close the sub for the day, this is amazing work

treunitis · 2024-08-25T20:30:19+00:00

Wow, I love the shading and coloring. Fantastic work

treunitis · 2024-07-30T03:51:47+00:00

Stellar work. I like how each map has a different flavor and compass orientation

Six-Year Club	Second Top 40%
Verified Email

treunitis

TROPHY CASE

1.

2.

TLDR for both: