nwt

We already talked about butt vs. hip, but the sliding technique I learned and recommend (with professional instruction and coaching) is to go straight to your hip without touching your feet first. The only way I know to touch feet first when you're too fast to run is to slide on them, which (1) is tricky and hazardous and (2) defeats the purpose of sliding on your hip. If you're skilled enough to slide on your feet safely, why not just continue sliding on them until you're slow enough to run?

I think everyone should master the PLF first, but the PLF and slide are different tools for different scenarios. The PLF is designed for a high vertical speed, and works by converting that vertical speed to horizontal. It was developed in the days of round parachutes. Sliding is intended for landings where you've successfully arrested your vertical descent, but your horizontal speed is too fast to run. In this scenario, assuming proficiency in both techniques on terrain where both can be done safely, sliding is better.

Speed is a scalar quantity which means it does not have a direction like the vector quantity velocity does. Energy is also a scalar quantity, and when people talk about squaring velocity, they really mean squaring the magnitude of velocity (speed). Momentum is a vector.

I don’t know how to summarize it any better than the tweet. What don’t you get?

Oh, well that actually makes a lot of sense! https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted?fbclid=IwAR1gIuurvKGOHXkwnRkOzqnbxKfL6YovNipmzSS03K5rUFn9UxXVjfPGxys

...yes. Maybe you are the one with your head in the sand. I don't think I'd consider voter turnout to be an outcome. Does USPA have a mandate to increase this? Why should I care about it? It seems like a strange thing to fixate on.

Melissa Lowe has done an outstanding job of increasing engagement through Facebook. She has done so on a great number of topics, and if you choose to believe it was only about the E license, then that's on you not her or the BOD. No, they don't. They exist without being a USPA member DZ. Very important difference.

Strawman. There are other types of evidence that are weaker than RCT but stronger than anecdote.

No, that would be completely incorrect, and would demonstrate that one has a complete and possibly willful inability to appropriately analyze data. For third time, any random attempt at analyzing data is not inherently correct. What a bizarre thing to suggest. Saying it over and over again isn’t going to make it any more true.

The graph you posted was not normalized. Anyway, that isn't important--it's just a distraction from the actual point. You're being deliberately obtuse. You seem to be making the absurd implication that all arguments based in data are equally fallacious, simply by virtue of the fact they are using data. This is what I've been refuting in the comments you've been ignoring. Why stop at data? Why not generalize it completely and say "oh look, here's an argument.... and here's another argument that says the opposite! Both can't be right, so they must both be wrong--therefore all arguments must be silly! Checkmate, science!"

Here, you seem to have missed this:

This is tangential, but there are multiple ways to slide, and it's wrong to conflate them all by jumping straight from "slide" to "tandem style slide on your butt". Without suggesting that this would be right or wrong for OP, sliding on your hip (part of your femur, the strongest bone in your body) is very different.

Here is another honest view of the same data: Total COVID deaths, adjusted for population. The idea that FL is somehow winning is laughable.

Not every way to look at the data is equal, and I'm not making your point by showing you you're wrong--I'll bet you think you're being clever by setting up a catch-22. Some views of the data are misleading while others are honest. Some are cherry-picked to support a particular position while others are looking for the truth. Here, you give yet another dishonest view of the data, by comparing deaths in FL vs. California without normalizing by population. The honest view of the same data is attached here. When a RCT disproves anecdotes, there is no conflict. No head scratching required. That's the entire point of doing the RCT. What does it mean to be "open to the idea that it can work"? It means being open to the idea of doing an RCT and accepting the results. This is indeed a very basic question. Simply making an uncontrolled study larger does not increase the reliability of its conclusions.

If this study concludes there is no benefit, will you accept that or will you ignore it and fall back on the anecdotal information?

If 100% of a population is vaccinated and 100% of patients in the local hospital are vaccinated, what does that tell you about the efficacy of the vaccine? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Neither does 10 of 33.

Too look at this and say CA is doing worse than FL is disingenuous.

Maybe most don't know that they care? If USPA disappeared and the FAA stepped to the fill the void, I think most would learn pretty quick.

When you actually look at the data in context instead of cherry-picking, it's immediately obvious that PA is doing better than FL.

True or not, I’m lost on why this would be either interesting or relevant…

The CDC Definitions of Vaccine and Vaccination since September 1, 2021: These two things both mean the same thing. Nothing moved.

He must be, but his description is certainly not accurate for when he wrote it. It seems it *may* have been plausible a week or two prior.

Where exactly are you seeing this data? The JHU data does not seem to agree [link].

Still waiting to hear which part you think is BS. The drive-by insult isn't a great look, especially when it doesn't make any sense.