My local favorite - the pizza pizza guy was a bit of a disappointment

Crazy stadiums, OK. But Photoshop can only go so far. It’s not magic, you know.

Batman you say? I see nothing but a jack-o-lantern bikini bottom.

Seems to me there is only uncertainty about who said it. BC can’t even sweep this under the rug without an outright lie tossed in.

First- I was replying to the comment that said a 21% increase in early death risk is negligible by looking at the small change on a very small probability. I wasn’t making any judgement about the quality of those years. But if you need to go there, an increase like this isn’t like a gunshot wound. If SSD consumption…

If you can’t figure it from here you’re either trolling or aren’t ever going to get it. I give up.

Yes - so that I had an example. How about - if you have an X% risk of dying by age Y, an increased risk of 21% would mean that you now would have an (X% * 1.21) risk of dying by age Y.

I don’t know. It’s been 30 years since my dad died. I might not mind talking to him again, even if I can’t see him. So if I don’t get dementia by 80 - I’ll try the ‘shrooms and peyote please.

The original article uses the phrase “associated with” instead of “linked”. And it’s pretty clear they mean nothing more that correlation.

I too gave it up and was surprised at how easy it was. But I’ll admit that when I have it now, it’s like pure cocaine. I sill love it. So for me it’s now kind of an illicit thrill. And that’s how lame middle age is - a can of cel-ray soda makes for an exciting night.

Or your interpretation, or the takeout write up, seems flawed. They only ever say it’s a correlation, nowhere do they say that drinking soda causes early death. The journal article describes the efforts they made to separate lifestyles, etc. from the results, that’s what meant by “The study does note that it was…

It means if you have a 20% risk of dying in the next 10 years without drinking soda, you would have a 0.2 * 1.21 = 24.2% risk of dying in the next 10 years instead. See? Increased risk (of dying).

The blog is misleading. This study only saw the strong effect of sugar sweetened drinks.

The looked at anything with added sugar. So likely that kid’s juice pouch that’s really water with fruit juice concentrates qualifies, but maybe not pure OJ. Though that may just be a limitation of the data set they’re working with, because as you say, straight up OJ has almost as much sugar as soda.

Not the scientists weasel words - the PR and blog writers actually.

The article is available in the current issue of Circulation Journal - take a look and you’ll not only see information on the populations used, but you’ll see it’s far from first-order statistics. (And you’ll also see that no where do they ever imply that correlation is causation.)

While what you say is true, you’ve looked at a really unlikely outcome (dying tomorrow?) and shown that a 21% increase isn’t a big deal. But that small increase happens every day.

“don’t want him off the ice because ‘showcase.’” Preach.

not to mention

It is legal. I agree with *Shrug*. I don’t like saying anything nice about Chara, but lifting a stick is one of the best plays a defenseman can make. Scheifele’s fault for letting it go.