SkaraBrae

Specifically 10mm sockets.

I had been awake for 36 hours and my mother insisted that I keep her company on a 5 hour drive to pick up her boyfriend. When she called I told her that I was going to bed. She turned up at mine to pick me up, anyway, and forced me into the car: I was too tired to resist. I slept all the way there and all the way back.

Lol. I thought the "crash can't come soon enough" line was hilariously close to Dwight's line. It was a joke. I guess everybody missed it. Fair enough, too, it was a joke from a comedy program... Why would anyone think that was supposed to be funny.

I'm just using Garmin connect.

I dropped Strava when they blocked access to my data without a paid subscription.

Your coach sounds like an arse. Every runner knows: nothing new on race day! You eat what you ate when you were training. You stick to your familiar routines.. Obviously, travelling away from home makes some adjustments necessary, but you keep it as normal as possible.

Well done on a good race under difficult conditions.

I did my CPR and First aid earlier this year (3rd time) in Australia and mouth-to-mouth wasn't taught as part of CPR this time.

Yeah... 😬 That climate change example was a bit of a stretch. I was just highlighting how easy it is to mislead people with part of the picture, rather than the whole ugly mess.

I still think that omitting studies into the cause of ADHD that don't include Tylenol is misrepresenting the data.

If there are 1000 studies into the cause of ADHD, and only 50 mention Tylenol, then omitting the other 950 is dishonest. Let's say 25 of the 50 find a correlation, then 25/50 is way different to 25/1000! That's where I see the P-hacking.

Thanks for being civil, too.

No, it doesn't. It returns studies that contain Tylenol AND ADHD. There's an immediate bias in favour of the hypothesis. They should be searched separately, then you would look at how many contain both, then look at how many correlate the two. Presenting only the data that correlates the two is presenting that data out of context: choosing the data to fit the hypothesis. P-hacking.

The media has done the same thing with climate change. They present for debate one scientist 'for' climate change and one scientists 'against' climate change as though there is a 50/50 chance that climate change is real, despite 99% of scientists falling on the 'for' side. A balanced debate would have involved 100 climate scientists with '1' against and 99 'for'. Instead we now have people who think that climate change denial is reasonable because the data was presented in an unbalanced, or biased, way.

If you only present that data that you think is relevant then you bias the result in your favour. If the data for all studies investigating the cause of ADHD was included, and then the % including Tylenol, then the % correlating Tylenol with ADHD, you would have a very different number... A much more honest one.

Search for studies containing links between ADHD and Tylenol to determine if there's a link between ADHD and Tylenol. P-hacking much? That is straight-up cherry-picking results to fit the hypothesis. 💩

We used the search term “ADHD AND acetaminophen.”

That was how the studies were selected... Lol. Real robust "research" there, guys.