Jay Pruitt

@reddit_lies In order to be a hockey player, you had to play NCAA. . . Which means they went to college. . . Which means theyre educated. . . Which means. . .

(User was banned for this post)

@doxie_gay Tbh, the only concern id have about a dog sleeping on my car is that they may scratch the paint. . . And a normal tarp would do a pretty good job of preventing that.

apparently in some countries, spike tarps have to be used on cars bc stray dogs like to sleep on them for warmth, also those tarps are apparently useless to deter them from doing so lol

In a real world situation where our buttons arent hypothetical, people who press the red button are likely to still press the red button. The idea being that you risk nothing pressing the red button. However, a certain percentage of people pressing the blue button will likely swap to pressing the red button, because the actual risk of pressing the blue button is death. The question is, how many will switch?

@jimiuorio The red guys can't imagine pushing blue in a real situation, so they project that on to everyone else and just treat it as "true" that the results would be different in a real scenario.

The red button blue button debate is way more layered than I originally thought. The hypothetical nature of the consequences allows the blue button people to view themselves as heroic saviors. They predict thier own behavior based on these delusions. The logical thinking skills of the red button people actually move to the next level thinking; how will the majority behave when the consequences graduate from hypothetical? History gives us a pretty conclusive answer..

@Tresio @MercuriusFilius The only person ive ever seen read that heavily into a question like you just did was a guy who was a high functioning autist. Take that as you will.

@MercuriusFilius The question is nonsense. No mention is made of the *number* of bacteria, so as phrased, the bacteria (singular? "bacterium" is obviously eating, reaching satiety at the 1-hour mark. It's probably growing throughout, but how to determine its size? My response: fire the editor.

How would you answer this common J.P. Morgan interview question?

@EyebagsCat @july4flowers Lucky you, in my last 10 games ive seen Sett support, Garen support, Ahri support, and Rammus support, with a fun little appetizer consisting of AD Crit Leona Top

@july4flowers I dont get jg soraka or yuumi top even 1/20 of the games I play people just pick normal stuff

Based on the new anti griefing system in place, in the 2014 TSM vs UOL upset where Kikis picked Twisted Fate jungle the game should have been terminated in champ select

Last question for you, then ill let you go about your way. . . Theoretically, we could start with high specificity tests, and fade into sensitivity tests, could we not? If have 3 tests that have specificity/sensitivity of 90/100, 95/95, and 100/90, testing positive for all three, or even two of the three. . . Would you say that tells us with a good degree of certainty that you have the disease we are testing for?

There are some lab tests with 100% specificity, but then specificity has a tradeoff with sensitivity, where the more specific a test is, the less sensitive it has to be. Thus, in the pursuit of eliminating false positives, the ugly head of the false negative shows its head. There are no lab tests that in the real world have both 100% specificity AND 100% sensitivity, precisely because one is the tradeoff of the other.

The most worrying poll I’ve ever seen is one when they asked doctors “1% of the population had disease X. The test has a 99% accuracy rate. If someone tests positive for disease X, what are the odds they’re have disease X” And like 95% of doctors said ~99%. This is their job.

I dont see any other teams acting like the Bruins have in their last 4 games. Even more specifically, Jeannot. Id pay good money to see Jeannot get his clock cleaned, and in game 3 after he ran him mouth, Lindy put all their big guys on the ice just to give Jeannot the fight he wanted. Suddenly Jeannot had nothing to say. I feel like watching Sabres/Bruins has been closer to watching an episode of Shoresy than NHL hockey. Certainly entertaining, but god do i wish someone would give Jeannot a shiner

@TheSabreReport this is how you know sabres fans don’t understand playoff hockey because this shit happens every single game and it’s never warranted a post lol

TNT broadcast showed Tanner Jeannot giving Alex Tuch a little wack in the back of the leg as he was headed off the ice

I see, so would there be such a thing as a test with 100% specificity? For instance, a disease that has distinct biomarkers? Im thinking something like AIDS, or more severe biology altering sicknesses, like Sickle Cell Anemia? Your comments on Covid do make a few things click. I would think that should serve as a case study on why following medical procedure is important. I do remember hearing that the free at home tests they gave had a ridiculous false positive rate, and if I recall, people were told a positive result should only indicate that you should go take a PCR or other lab test.

Yes, many lab tests have way lower specificity rates than 99%, which makes the problem worse by orders of magnitude. Per Bayes, the prior probability is key. If a person has all classic symptoms of disease X, and the test comes out positive, the prior probability being higher means the posterior probability of the positive result indicating the person has the disease is higher than if the test was made randomly, screening for something without previous symptoms. In fact, because of Bayes, as a general rule lab tests by themselves have very poor predictive values except when preceded by an already high prior P (e.g. classical symptoms of X). Assuming a high (i.e. 99%) specificity rate, you can have the same positive test result be virtually meaningless in a screening context (very low prior probability), while having reasonable predictive value in a clinical context if the prior probability is high (i.e. the patient presents all the classical symptoms of the disease plus has many of the known risk factors). Unfortunately, during Covid we all saw how the medical community threw basic Bayes out the window when they started treating a +PCR as definitive proof that someone "had" covid. And then came up with the concept of the "asymptomatic covid case". While anyone with basic knowledge of basic probability knows that randomly testing people without symptoms was a bad idea. Even if we ignore all the studies consistently showing doctors are bad at basic probability, the covid thing put it in plain view for all to see. A corollary: screening programs are generally bound to give much more false than true positives, and as no medical intervention is innocuous, to cause much more harm than good in the population targeted.

@dsonoiki You may actually be a lawyer, but that does mean that youre not a very good one.

lawyer here if you try to kill the president and miss, it’s not a crime there’s no such charge as “attempted assassination” and it was in DC? this guy will walk

@thurman34thomas Sure. We should also look the other way when Jeannot gets his clock cleaned. Dudes been a sore loser all series. Someone's gotta handle it.

People keep saying “this is playoff hockey” so I’m genuinely asking if this is something that should be brushed off cause it’s the playoffs

You seem to know a fair share about this topic, so i have a question for you. Obviously in this case, a 99% accuracy rating *seems* really good. Once you get into the numbers though, it turns into a 50/50 gamble. How does the medical world math something like that out to determine whether or not you actually have a disease? Symptomology probably plays a part I imagine, but (and I use this example only because it comes to mind first) how would a test with that kind of accuracy rating definitively show you have something like covid, over, say, a common cold or flu?

From the parameters of the example, 1% prevalence rate of the disease, we should expect 10 out ot 1,000 to have the disease. However, given the 99% specificity rate of the test, we obtain that 1% of people *not* having the disease will test positive. So, out of 990 not having the disease, ~10 (9.9 rounds up to ~10) people will test positive that do not have the disease, that is false positives. So, 10 true positives + ~10 false positives ≈ 20 positives in total. Out of which only 10 are true positives. Thus, P(Disease | test positive) ≈ 0.5 (50%). Given a positive result, the probability that it is a true positive is only around 50%. The fact that doctors consistently -as shown in many studies of the sort-- get this way wrong should concern everyone.

@ztwiig @LinkofSunshine If the test is 99% accurate, as in the outcome of the test has a 99% chance to be correct, then if you test any single individual person, the odds of the test reflecting their true status is 99%.

@Lithium_CO3 @LinkofSunshine Wrong. It's just as likely to be a false positive (which happens 1% of the time) as it is to be a true positive (which also happens 1% of the time). So I think it's 50/50. But it's definitely not 99.

@allenanalysis Btw, for those curious: theroanokestar.com/2026/04/23/jud… This contains the full ruling text, and why it was thrown out.

My brother in christ. I cant help but notice that you posted the first and last pages, and not the pages in-between that *explain the judges decision.* The democrats broke numerous laws and procedures required to pass such a vote. If a police officer Terry stops you, and arrests you for something on your person, are you not entitled to appeal the stop itself and have the ensuing court case thrown out on the grounds that Terry stops arent legal? The same applies to legal proceedings.

Let me explain what just happened in Virginia. Yesterday, 2.5 million Virginians voted. They passed a redistricting amendment 50.7% to 49.3%. Today, one judge threw out every single vote. 🧵

I dont doubt UPLs ability. First two games hes faced 6 breakaways, and only let in one. Thats tight goaltending right there. But I feel he needs a breather after last game. This is uncharted territory for us, very few of our guys have seen the playoffs before. UPL *needs* to do better. Muffins cant get into the net. The five hole cant be a valid target. And most importantly, he needs to track the puck better. Ill be honest. We got lucky game 1. For real. So lucky that we set a playoff record. We cant rely on that. That means not letting in the easy stuff. That means not going two periods without scoring.

@BuiltInBuffalo_ UPL let in one soft goal and made numerous incredible saves on breakaways. We haven’t scored a goal on a power play nor in the first or second period. I don’t think goaltending is the issue. We need to play the first 52 minutes like we play the last 8 minutes. Go Sabres!!!

𝗗𝗘𝗕𝗔𝗧𝗘: Should Alex Lyon get the start in goal for the #Sabres in Game 3 vs Boston? #Sabres | #Sabrehood | #LetsGoBuffalo

My buddy and I just had this discussion. In my opinion, we are at Boston the next two games. We NEED to win at least one if we want to survive this series. We could play UPL if we really wanted to, but after last game thats a gamble we cant take. My take - we put Lyon or Ellis in for game 3, and if, and only if, we win. . . We can put UPL back in for game 4 and see if he can out work game 2. If we put UPL in for game 3, and he gets stomped again, thats too much pressure on Ellis or Lyon for game 4, which would be a must win away game. Coming back home 1-3 in the series would be. . . Stressful. for the team.

@theblessedsalt @DrinkOutTheBox But its what you've implied in your responses.

This post is an excellent litmus test for understanding of just war theory. Despite the fact that I can see how effective this would be, I must oppose it because the damage it would do to my enemy (who bashes in my mailbox) would far outweigh the good of saving my mailbox. Its disproportionality is opposed by our duty in charity (and even justice) to watch out even for the good of our enemies. (Yes, by the way, I have had my mailbox bashed in by random vandals.)

Understandable, however, the act of vandalizing a mailbox is a petty act in and of itself. The damage the concrete would cause would serve as not only a direct consequence of an explicitly malicious act, but a teaching moment for the person doing it. Only a willfully malicious act begets the implied punishment.

@FowlClaytoris Too low, plus use of stick to follow through with a trip. He swept his feet out from under him.

Now that the game is over, can someone explain what was illegal about this hip check? Contact was above the knees so no clipping call. What am I missing here?