But in another sense, the paper was entirely wrong: the Mediterranean diet does not cause better health outcomes.
I haven’t read the second link, so I’d be happy to be proven wrong, but I seriously doubt the investigation found that the paper instead proves the null hypothesis. It’s extremely annoying that even purported “science” writers can’t be precise with language.
Prediction: This article will be quoted, without a direct link to the original paper or investogation, asserting that “The Mediterranean diet [b]does not[/b] cause better health outcomes,” instead of “does not necessarily” or “has not been proven to”. And then the imprecise language will be further extended to call it harmful, based only on the game of telephone going on here. Feel free to link this post and call me wrong on or after 2021-06-15, I’ll find the articles.
My last official predictiction was to say that even though the Facebook IPO was widely acknowleged to be a ripoff, you would have more money five years after than you started with. I actually think it was much stronger than that, but regardless, I was right. Feel free to find my post from, I think, the day of the Facebook IPO. If my claim wasn’t at least as strong as I’ve claimed, post-inflation (I’m pretty sure I was smart enough back then to take both inflation and opportunity cost into account and think I said you’d at least double your money, but again, please prove me wrong, I’m too lazy to look the post up but refuse to refuse to accept reality), I’ll do something extremely personally embarassing with my real face on Youtube, do my best to make it funny to whoever posts a link to my incorrect post, use my real face, and link it as a reply.
I’m pretty fucking good though. Unverifiable claims:
Two weeks prior to the Google acquisiton of the (UHF?) wireless spectrum, I called that they would win, with their bid to three digits of accuracy (11.x million $ IIRC). Reasoning behind it? Slashdot, actually. Back then, there were a lot of very capable and informed people here, and having just started to become truly competent and trying to figure out how to communicate that to my peers and managers, I was really tuned in to identifying actual experts from their posts, and just let my brain pick a random number. I can’t say the reasoning was solid or anything but luck... but I think it was and was.
On seeing OS X 10.0, I called that Apple stock would skyrocket within 3 years. Reasoning? A company dropping its ego, and more than that, getting their senior devs to make an honest attempt at standing on the shoulders of giants, up-front and not post-hoc? It’s so obviously a path to success, and yet so rare, it’s practically guaranteed to succeed.
Called iPod success. Laughed at “Less Space than a Nomad”.
Called iPhone release when everyone said they’d never do it.
Successes posted as a reminder of confimation bias in case I’m wrong—I’ve only called one thing verifiably correct on Slashdot. Even if I get this one right, 2/2 in 12-ish years is not statistically-significant. Just making sure I can’t rewrite my unverifiable correct claims in case they end up wrong in hindsight.