Jump to content

MLD Woody

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


MLD Woody last won the day on July 7

MLD Woody had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,515 Excellent

1 Follower

About MLD Woody

  • Rank
    Number Hangs in the Rafters
  • Birthday 03/19/1992

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. MLD Woody

    For you science deniers

  2. No, you're missing the point on why I looked into it Any time Cal (and a few others) post something like "Real science proves global warmed fake!", and they actually posted a link to something they think is "scientific proof" it can almost always be easily reviewed and torn apart. Every time. Never changes there mind... but it is easy to do. What you're doing is the same thing, but with "statistics". As soon as I see you posting something flaunting statistics and chi-square values I know it can be torn apart almost immediately. Tia saw the same thing.
  3. Thanks on both accounts As for getting a green belt, if you're good with numbers (which I believe you are) it isn't hard. Some programs (or companies with their own programs) can be more intensive. Two weeks in course training, project, reports. Some programs are just online self study and an exam. If you think it would be a resume boost for you, and you've got some time over the holidays to do the online coursework, it's not a bad idea and wouldn't be that difficult.
  4. Right, what you're saying is correct. Six Sigma, Motorola, GE, Jack Welch, etc Lean and Six Sigma are not the same thing Six Sigma can be used for QA root cause analysis... And it uses statistics to do that That's the point
  5. Six Sigma has a base in statistics. That's literally in the name. Decisions are made to drive process improvements using ... yep you guessed it, statistics. Data analysis. The topic of this back and forth. Look, I get where the responses to my post are going and will continue to go. That wasn't my point, but certain posters here will line up for the chance to try and jump on it. Our resident conspiracy theorist called out my knowledge of something... when he looks to barely have a leg to stand on.
  6. So 40 years ago you took an elective that maybe had something to do with statistics And you insinuated that my 7 year old Engineering degree, my current MBA in Analytics, and my training in Six Sigma all apparently did nothing to teach me statistics.... Maybe just assume I know a little bit what I'm talking about when I'm laughing at this "article" on "statistically proven voting fraud" and calling it full of shit...
  7. No use explaining the college tuition bubble to the klan
  8. and? It has been said repeatedly on here the Biden is a shitty, uninspiring, won't really make much of a difference candidate.... and it looks like about 46M people agreed and still thought he was better than Trump
  9. Please enlighten me on the curriculum you went through and your background in statistical analysis I actually just read that gateway pundit "article", which is just an incoherent rant by some poster that they published, and knowing that there are people out there completely believing this nonsense is incredibly concerning and disappointing. Anyone with any quantitative ability and basic ability to research on their own would be able to see that is just nonsense. He's just throwing out "chi-square!!!!" and graphs to look intelligent to morons. Sometimes I forget how bad the average American is at math but this was a great reminder...
  10. I'm between denial and anger is his normal state of mind
  11. "MRC. Never heard of it before. Let me look it up...." ... aaaaaaaaaaaaand its a conservative think tank. Of course it is. So Tiny Tim and all of you can latch right on to this, but anyone not already elbow deep in MAGA love will look at it with a very, very skeptical eye.
  12. Dr Zelenko again? His stuff got shot down literally months ago. He also claimed, months ago, to have treated over 300 patients with hydroxy. This study only refers to 141 being treated. Inherent to all retrospective analyses, our study has certain limitations, such as non-randomisation and blinding of treatment. Also, only the outcome data of the untreated control group based on the public reference were available; because no other data on patient characteristics or clinical symptoms were available, no risk adjustment was possible. Therefore, confounding factors and selection bias, among other issues, might exist. The demographic composition of the treatment group might also have had an influence on our findings. Because many physician appointments had to be managed by telehealth, vital parameters were not available for the majority of patients.