ooga booga

@Death Strike's Bat

I make stuff

it's actually pretty fun

Kind of disappointing when you realize nobody else does, though

our economy is cucked and our schools teach nothing

suidlanders

are they still doing shit around the US?

To the US?

You know them personally?

also

amazon is selling unhardened drill bits

I find that hilarious

Hm

I'm curious as to whether I know you irl

but if you live in MN I probably don't

I don't have a FB

If that's your real name though, I don't know you

I don't want to dox you

I'll just assume I don't

If I actually believed in any sort of validity in philosophy I'd likely be a stoic

I love doing things for myself

I eat koreans

you sure it wasn't a dude?

did anyone get the shit kicked out of them?

Needs more people

I wonder how many of those people would be pissed at having a nationalist and/or fascist in their ranks

I assume probably a good number

I saw my first gender neutral bathroom today

what a shitshow this world is

@fallot If I recall right

there was a very serious and lengthy 10 year study that found a significant association with cheese consumption and cancer

More specifically casein

@fallot it was a 10 year study as I said

That's quite a long time

there may be more factors to it unaccounted for but the premise is definitely eye opening

I'm open to the idea, though I'd of course like to see more research

I think the point was that a 10 year study is far more reliable than a 1 year study

it's similar to sample size

how is that a semi fallacy?

Are you proposing that a 2 week study is as reliable as a 10 year study under the same conditions?

I find that doubtful

That's not true at all

I'm not debating the validity of whether cheese causes cancer

I'm debating the validity of the results of any given study based on length and size

It is well established that such factors are important

Part of the scientific method if I recall properly

And how to do you come to that conclusion or measure such a thing?

Look

I'm not saying a long study makes it valid

but a long study under the same given conditions is superior to a short study

Long enough is subjective

If we were to tally the causes of starvation to attempt to prevent it, counting only the past 100 years of history is entirely inferior to measuring the entirety of both history and prehistory.

This is objective

the more data you have the better

The better understanding of what causes starvation

Actually it would give you less ability to construct viable statisticial models because it allots for more variation

I don't see how that changes anything

More data = more possibility for deviation of an imagined pattern

This helps remove human bias when theories don't match up

I respectfully think most of the scientific community disagrees

But you're free to your opinion

But it is

That's simply fact

That's not about possibility

you're giving a specific example

That's very generalized

my point still stands though

The more data you have, the more possibility for variation, compared to less data.

that's a very basic concept

If I flip a coin one time, I will likely never have the variation that I will find if I flip it 10 times.

"Actually it would give you less ability to construct viable statisticial models because it allots for more variation"

is what I said

No?

You deny me saying that?

I literally copy and pasted

If you toss a coin 100,000 times you're going to have more accuracy in your conclusion than if you do it 10 times under the same conditions

you could flip 7 heads and 3 tails by chance

with 100,000 flips you won't get 70 percent heads

with 10 it's still significantly possible

You believe it's impossible to get 7 heads in a coin toss of 10 times?

I think most people would disagree

even if its not likely

it's still quite possible

100k is more than 10

100k helped compared to 10

hence proving my point

What?

This is really basic stuff

I'm not trying to knock you

It's not irrelevant

It's quite important

You're acting as if sample size doesn't matter

that's clearly not the case

It matters period

Yes, we only have so many resources to expend on it

But it's important to get a large sample size

10 mil will still give you a more accurate result than 100k

It's not about being "more true" but more accurate

it will