I have a 12 yo daughter and 9 yo son. Here are the names I see a lot of:
Sophia, Lily, Emma, Jaiden/Jaden/Jaidyn (girls and boys), James (girls and boys), Piper, Lucy, Maggie, Aiden, Kai, Audrey, Riley/Rilee (girls and boys), Paige, Parker (girls and boy)
Alright good afternoon my wrinkle wizards and smoothbrain boners, we’ve got a situation on our hands and things are looking…spicy.
HODL ON!!!! (don’t try this at home)
So over the past couple months, we’ve had the Mainstream Media (MSM) reach out to the Mod Team for interviews. We told them all no, we can’t do interviews. For transparency purposes, these news agencies are Reuters, Market Watch, Wall Street Journal, & CBC (Canadian Broadcast Company). Hell, we even had a possible connection to a US Senator lol. We haven’t done anything with them other than some initial back and forth to find out what they want. It’s not our place to speak on behalf of the Apes. We do not represent Apes, we do not speak for Apes, and we sure as hell aren’t gonna try.
Recently, we’ve had an uptick in outside agencies reaching out and if we’re honest, we think SuperStonk and the Apes are gonna be dealing with a lot more of the press/politicians as we get closer to MOASS. As such, the Mods have felt we need to collaborate with you guys on a game plan for dealing with these agencies, together as a community, because it’s gonna be a bumpy ride.
(for real, don’t try this at home)
So here’s what we know: We received modmail with requests for interviews, we asked about what, some have responded, some have not, and here we are. One of them had a focus on why we were so adamant about Computershare and what changes we’ve noticed since moving our shares into our names. We expect that soon, others will reach out and want us to say something. Especially when we start seeing the stock price add some commas 😉. Until the subreddit figures out how to proceed, we’re gonna leave them on “Read.”
How do you guys think we should proceed with the news? Should we engage? If so, how? Do you want to directly talk to them? Or should we tell them to fuck off? We want to hear your thoughts and ideas. The Mods do have an option to manually approve reporters if you wish to invite them to the subreddit to ask their questions. It’s a lot of ground we need to cover. And because of how open ended this situation is, the Mods would like to pitch an idea to you.
…is band together and use the combined skills of the community to develop and create the first Supe
... keep reading on reddit ➡I’m the author of “A Critical Review of the Baseline Soldier Physical Readiness Requirements Study.” SMA-PAO (Public Affairs Officer for the Sergeant Major of the Army) recently made a post that contains significant disinformation about my report. SMA-PAO starts with “I will not be discussing the future of the ACFT, but I will not allow for false narratives to set the foundation for whatever that decision is” and then proceeds to construct a false narrative. I would like to correct that narrative.
In 2019, I was selected by the American Statistical Association to serve as a congressional fellow, a position supported by an independent grant to strengthen the use of evidence and data science in federal policymaking. I was placed in the legislative staff of the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In summer 2020, following social media reports of a failure rate as high as 83% among female soldiers on the roll-out of the ACFT, I was asked to investigate the data. What I initially thought would be a quick-turn analysis turned into a deep dive of how compounding errors undermined the predictive model behind the ACFT. I wrote my report as an internal document for Congress: a one-page executive summary for members of Congress, the main matter for congressional staffers, and footnotes with all of the gory mathematical details. I submitted my report to my Senate office in October 2020. Congress subsequently (in the 2021 NDAA) directed the Army to pause the ACFT until an external review of it could be conducted (now by RAND). After receiving external requests for my report, I cleared its release and eventually submitted it to arXiv.org in October 2021.
SMA-PAO states that my analysis “was neither peer reviewed nor scientifically validated.” The statement is false. I communicated with the authors of the University of Iowa's report, particularly because I discovered several things that they missed during their assessment. They subsequently provided their feedback on my draft report. Additionally, my report was reviewed by experts in both exercise physiology and statistics. It was also briefed separately to a panel from the Institute for Defense Analysis and several scientists across several fields of study.
SMA-PAO goes on to say that my analysi
... keep reading on reddit ➡
