#this is not how dare you say we piss on the poor

[flaetsbnort]

*checking my aura guide to see what this shade of orange means* how dare you say we piss on the poor

convinced no one actually reads posts on here

[phoenixfire-thewizardgoddess]

Okay but consider this...

Lillith did not, in fact, order Alastor to go to the hotel or protect Charlie (per say)

In fact, she might have slapped the exact opposite order on the deer, because she knew what a nightmare he could be.

It would be inifinitely more fun to have her reveal that when she drops in for a visit.

"So you sent Alastor here to protect me?"

"My dear, I told him explicitly not to fucking come here in order to protect you. But he's a wilful bastard and I should have known better." Lillith sighed, rubbing her eyes.

"So why did you come here?"

"Why, pure spite and a desire for entertainment my dear. Why not?"

"...if that's true, why didn't you ask for my soul in our deal? I... would hope my mother would trade it for your own."

"She may have, she may not have. She could just force me to release it to her too, you know that's in her power."

"That didn't answer my question..."

Lillith laughs, "Darling, I think you actually endeared yourself to the Overlord when you fought that horrid mantis woman on television. He genuinely enjoys that level of chaos... and the fact he remained against my many subtle attempts to have him leave, means perhaps the stubborn deer might actually like you."

"Preposterous, it's mere entertainment..."

"Like Rosie? Like Vox? Are they entertainment? You let her hug you and didn't even try to bite Charlie once. Oh don't get steamed, deer, I'm just yanking your tail... it's not a bad thing to care for someone. And my-... Our darling daughter..." here she winked, having scryed the initial song battle between Alastor and Lucifer, grinning widely. The two were so similar when it came to theatricality, and yet, so different in terms of everything else. "here is just the sort of creature that no one but the bleakest of fools could fail to care for."

"...how dare you imply I have any emotions, you wretched diva." The tone was mock offence and joviality, and only Lillith's echoing laughter stopped Lucifer from defending her majesty's honour.

"Oh, you do, and I'm sure you're quite fawn'd of Charlotte, you antagonistic anachronistic ancient artifact." She bounces back, airily.

"Ho, I know one should never ask a lady her age, but I don't think there's a number high enough for you to provide in answer."

"I missed these little banter sessions, Bambi, it got quite boring without someone mocking my every waking moment."

"And your husband is a poor substitute for your cruel wit, Siren, and yet... we made do with what we had. Now, how are you here? I thought Adam's little nonsense kept you pinned in place?"

"I believe Niffty took the pest out on my behalf and snapped the threads binding me there. Do get her something pretty from Rosie's and put it on my account, I know the demonic doll will adore anything from her boutique."

"Hello, can I get a word in edgewise?" Lucifer has this too-cheerful grin on his face, waving his hand like an eager student aiming for the attention of the teacher. "Hi, your husband, hello. Quick question, what the fuck are you talking about? How do you know the bellhop? How is Adam involved in any of this? And again, what the FUCK is going on here?"

"Oh... did I not say, my love?" Lillith coos, a trembling note that she knew angels used between one another to help settle ffrazzled nerves. It was always a delightful amusement to see Lucifer's ruffled feathers settle. Intriguingly, the little ex-orcist does to, and then looks confused about it. "Why, I was trapped in Heaven with my boorish first fool of a 'husband', to prevent more 'rebellion nonsense'. I had to make a rather clever deal to help Alastor get back to Hell, and I technically own his soul... but we've been friends for decades, dear. You've met twice..."

Ah, that might be why Alucard was so pissed to be dismissed, Lucifer realises. Wouldn't be the first time he'd forgotten a face.

"Charlie was abooooout ten at the time, in terms of age, my dove..." Lillith prompts. "The television sinner was there too? Do you recall that?"

"...no. But a lot of those decades were a foggy mess." Lucifer admits, trying to work out how he forgot a guy with a tv for a head. Wait, he remembered the guy with a tv for a head. "Did the television have a yellow sweater on and I kept subtly asking how the fuck he managed to get it on given the neckhole didn't seem that stretchy?"

Audience applause played from the air. "That's the one. The secret was, of course, velcro down the back. He'll say he used his powers to put it on, but he didn't have that ability back then." Alastor explains. "I do believe it was a vaguely productive meeting, even if you were only physically present, your Lowness. Why, I recall we'd taught deer Charlotte at least four new swear words by the time we left..."

Charlie, whose eyes were wide as she Recalled Something, felt her mouth fall open. "Oooooh, so you're the ones who taught me to say [very long and complicated series of words that seem to be sending Lucifer into a state of rage as yet unattainable to sinners with every syllable]... right? I said that to dad when he told me it was bathtime and I didn't want to, and he had to go set something on fire before he came back to talk about 'good words and bad words'."

Vaggie looked horrified, and snapped a glare at the radio demon.

Alastor's grin was WIDER than it should be possible to get. "Are you telling me, my dear Charlotte, was that his Majesty's tantrum was the reason that half of pentagram city was burned to the ground shortly after we left that day? Oho, that's just... delicious."

"Well I shouldn't have said it..." Charlie agonised, "I'm sorry Dad. I mean, it was a while ago,but..."

"Oh, you're not to blame Char-Char... this fucker is." Lucifer launches for Alastor, whose tendrils are manifesting... and then a startled bleat escapes as Lillith yanks him practically into her lap by the collar.

"Hold, Luci, there was no harm done in the long run. And you know I found it hilarious, in the aftermath." Lillith waves it off. She turns to the Overlord trying to right himself. "And you, you terrible influence, I do hope you haven't taught our darling anything worse while I was away?"

Charlie, caught back on the bleat sound, is watching on with stars in her eyes. She blinks. "What? No, he hasn't... well, unless you count [a strange warbling static came out of her mouth as her lips moved in what seemed like words]?"

Alastor's ears went flat in shock. "I promise you I didn't teach her that... I had no idea she could even hear that frequency, nuch less verbalise it!"

"I heard you tell Vox he should-..."

"DO NOT REPEAT THAT!" Alastor just about begged as static spilled about the room. "Do you WANT your parents to reduce me to atoms?"

Charlie blinked. "No? It was a pretty creative threat, but it wasn't that bad..."

Lucifer was pulling at a mental thread from the conversation. "Hold on, can we back up to the part where the deer was in Heaven...? How did that happen?"

Angry static filled the room until it was oppressive. Vaggie clutched at Charlie's arm whilst also putting herself between Charlie and the Overlord.

"Enough of that..." Lillith murmured and tugged at an antler. She received an indignant noise that Alastor wouldn't ever admit to with a gun to his head. "They were going to find out eventually you overdramatic cervine... might as well out with it."

The ears pinned flat. "No."

"Fine, I will... this canibalistic mass-murdering psychopath somehow got accidentally redeemed whilst fending off angels during an extermination. I strongly suspect it was because, even though they had just been fighting to the death, he still put himself in the way of those who would have killed Vox..."

Charlie was flickering between shock, anger, confusion and something that looked like it wanted to be weepy and affectionate. Hopefully she didn't settle for the latter because Lillith and Lucifer would have to pin the deer in place to avoid Alastor throwing himself out a window to avoid the whole mess.

"You... you knew it was possible... and you didn't TELL ME?!" Charlie yelled, settling on Anger.

Alastor grins, "Well, you never directly asked, did you?"

Charlie steamed, then pivoted in the old Charlie Fashion (TM) to joyful. "It's possible?!"

Lillith also adds, "From what I have heard around Heaven, it may not have been the first time... they just keep it quiet. And... well, if someone gets up there who starts doing things like, say, eating Cherubs because they were furious they were trapped there... they usually just killed them off. Unless, of course, they had the Queen of Hell there who could convince them to try another way."

"You ate CHERUBS?! They're like CHILDREN?" Lucifer is aghast.

"They are infuriatingly too-positive little nightmares with no common sense or ability to accept anyone else's viewpoint. Yes. they were delicious."

"...well, okay they're a bit of an experience but eating them?!"

"Most of them are centuries older than myself, they had enough time to learn to back off. I warned them, they persisted, I got to try angelic veal..."

Vaggie looked like she wanted to throw up. "Don't. ever. say that phrase again."

"What, angelic ve-...?"

"You stop taunting my future daughter in law or I order you to let them pet your tail." Lillith warns. It's an empty threat, she was a major proponent of bodily autonomy (anyone who'd been trapped with Adam would be) but Alastor didn't need to know that.

"You wouldn't dare!"

"I would. Now, shall I continue? Lovely. We made a deal, with Adam cosigning because I was under his contract, to allow Alastor to return to Hell as a Sinner... with a few rules that the oaf created. Particularly the one around not raising an army against Heaven, and some poorly worded nonsense about not sharing the secrets of angelic steel and implying he should not be 'fucked with' which we took to assume meant no fighting the fool. Because he certainly made passes at both of us."

Lillith's mouth turned down in distaste. Alastor looked like HE was going to be sick.

Lucifer's expression flickered demonic. "If he wasn't dead, I'd kill him again..." After everything Lillith went through in the Garden, to be trapped with a man who could never learn from his mistakes, was blind to making them. Revolting.

"Didn't want to take the Dickmaster for a spin, Bambi?" he snipes, distracting himself with the casual patter of argumentation with the overlord.

"Why, your majesty, I was busy with your wife... although comparatively, I do have good time management skills, I suppose I COULD have managed if I tried..."

"You did WHAT?!"

Lillith was trying so hard to keep a straight face as she threw a pseudo seductive expression at Alastor. "Oh darling, he's not ready to know about that..." she purrs. She sees her husband attain an almost orange colouring. "We're joking, dear... I promise."

"Dad? Try counting to te-... fifty-seven." Charlie intervenes.

"One, two-... wait, why 57?" he says, colour settling again.

"Because the number was so unusual you'd get curious about it and drop out of your funk to ask."

"...you really are so clever, Char-Char, we really made something amazing when we created you."

"Daaaaaaaaaaad, please... not in front of Vaggie." she flushes.

"Unclench, your Lowness, your wife is aesthetically pleasing but we are but friends." Alastor shrugged.

"Because you liked Vox, right?" Lucifer was awarding himself a mental medal because he REMEMBERED bits of the conversation. Wasn't that sad?

Alastor snarled. "Hardly." Oooh, that seemed like a sore spot. Time to press.

"Didn't like you back, huh? Fair. I can't fucking stand you, and-..."

"Lucifer, leave it." Lillith said. It wasn't harsh or sharp, but it conveyed that she knew something about why the Overlord's expression had fallen behind that smile, even as he forced whatever emotion that meant back into a box and reasserted the mask. "It's complicated, and now is not the time for that conversation. Suffice to say, no one slept with Adam outside of his exorcists, but I did manage to get Alastor back to Hell as swiftly as I could in order to have him covertly assisting Charlie."

"How? If you wouldn't let him at the hotel, then how does that help?"

"Destabilise the Overlords, be more lenient about the souls on his chains trying out the hotel, spread information about the place in a covert manner that wouldn't get a target on you, so many underhanded things my dear. Though, I am glad he disobeyed... I hadn't realised how little you understood of management and staffing."

"Heh, yeah... it was the best we had."

"Charlotte, you could have ordered palace staff to come and help at the hotel, you were always too kind."

"Oh, I dismissed them when you left with Charlie..." Lucifer adds, sheepishly.

"It seems there is a lot I need to do in the interim, then." Lillith sighed. "Alastor, would you be open to helping me manage these tasks, even without the deal in place?"

"...I kept the last hotel together with magical duct tape and elbow grease, it's a matter of pride now to continue in the role." Alastor shrugs, as if unconcerned. The collar shatters with a snap of elegant pale fingers. "Thank you... now, what was it you needed seen to? I will need to schedule in a few hours to go and tear the Vees limb from limb, but outside of that, my calendar's quite open."

"Wait, we need to discuss everything we just learned! I have questions!"

"Later, Charlotte. Now is the time for action..." Alastor replies, radio dial eyes flaring, already planning on how he would prepare the Vees for dinner.

"How dare you talk to our daughter that way, Alastor, deer?" Lillith teases, tugging at his ear and laughing as he snaps his teeth at her fingers. "Oh, don't fight in front of Charlotte, she'll end up with a complex or something..."

"On top of her glaring daddy issues you mean?"

Alastor doesn't like the way Lucifer's expression goes from furious to cold, cruel delight in a heartbeat. "Well, it's on you to fix now as well, bellhop... seeing as you claimed her too. So, how about some..." the world seemed o slow down like a horror movie, "Family... therapy...?"

"...If you'll excuse me, I'm going to beg Vox to kill me."

Charlie leaps for him, "No, he's kidding!"

"So am I, Charlotte... do take a breath. Your parents are apparently comedians this afternoon, and I think we'd all best steer clear of them until whatever madness has swept over them, passes. Now, would you like to come and watch me dismember an overlord? You and Vagathat could even tag-team Velvette if you wished..."

Vaggie looks like she might pass out.

His ears flatten. "Ah, I believe I hit another slang term and I'm not going to like what it really means... am I?"

Lucifer curls half his wings around the Overlord, as one might companionably sling an arm over their shoulder if they were at comparable heights. Clearly having decided that he can torment the other better if he REALLY leans into this madness between them all.

He steers the deer towards the corridor as Lillith follows behind, unwilling to miss the fuss.

"Well, you're gonna love this, Al... husbando nuero uno, honey, deerly beloved, blood moon of our life..." Laying it on thick, but Al looked ready to claw his own ears off with each passing endearment. "...but tag-teaming used to mean fighting in tandem, and now it means-..."

The door clicks shut, but seconds later every radio in the c=vinciity blasts an air raid siren and something that sounds mysteriously like a clown falling down the stairs.

Charlie counts to ten, breathing hard.

"What the fuck is my life...?" she whispers.

Vaggie consoles her as best she can, tossing up if Charlie outweighed the insanity of her family enough to propose. She blanches, momentarily, imagining having to ask Lucifer and Lillith and Alastor's permission, before catching herself.

Sure just the first two, right?

Right?

But then she recalled the look in the royal couple's eye, and their infamous penchant for committing to the bit... and resigned herself to like, dragging a sinner home and offering it to the deer for his blessing. Or something insane like that.

"No matter what, I love you, Charlie..." she murmurs externally. "Let's go take a walk in the garden to calm down, okay?"

"...yeah, I could use fresh air after all this."

There'd be so much to talk about later, so much to ask... but for now?

Charlie needed cuddles and connection.

And, based on the sounds downstairs, someone needed a first aid kit or a priest... so they'd be taken the back staircase to avoid all that. The smoke alarms began to blare.

Vaggie tugged Charlie away from the choas just a little faster.

----------

no idea where this was going, it spiralled on me

it could be funny tho

[the-real-list-of-ominous-threats]

I'm going to make you see a post that isn't 100% wrong but completely ignores nuance and accuses a very large proportion of people of evils they haven't really committed in its black and white take. You will want to rewrite it to better phrase the (not incorrect) core message, but also be worried that if you do, you'll create massive arguments.

[allpiesforourown]

CRYINGGG is this because I called the Roman salute the fascist salute. Because they're literally the same thing

[brightlotusmoon]

https://twitter.com/deathbybadger/status/1749501813122867396

[treesofgreen]

Not understanding Izzy or understanding why people might love him sounds like a skill issue tbh.

[tributary]

i hate hate hate being misread on the Misreading Me Webbed Site

[carrieonfighting]

It seems pretty obvious to me that 2nd poster is agreeing with you, and commenting on the imagined statement you included in your original post to expound on your point. Like yes you're right, and people who say escapism is not picking the good options don't know how to have fun.

people will say "rpgs are for escapism why do you always pick the nice/heroic dialogue options" and well u see, the escapism IS being able to help everyone

[sergle]

There's something about like. A certain genre of posts / Online Opinions about insecurity/depression/misery/complaints that are so unhelpful that they wrap right around to being straight up hilarious. and it's the ones that are more or less written to the tone of "Feeling bad? That's gross!" Like, just so you know, don't voice your insecurities/ have low self esteem, because that's offputting! You're gross and weird. Don't be insecure about that, though. That would be stupid if you felt insecure about people disliking you for being insecure. Not attractive. You should be thinking about being as attractive as possible. You shouldn't make comments about suicide, even if you're suicidal! Keep those thoughts entirely to yourself. Make sure nobody around you knows you're thinking about this. It would Make Them Uncomfortable. It's better to keep these thoughts in your head where they can fester. Don't post OR talk to friends with complaints about you feeling miserable or depressed. Tbh people who are sad/upset a lot? Kinda a red flag! You are probably miserable because you're a bad person and you've brought this on yourself. If you don't have friends, it's because you're awful to be around. Easy! Solved the problem for you. And no, there is no nuance to this, got it? So, make sure to feel bad about feeling bad, but don't feel bad about it, because, well, that's just gross. And annoying! You might've wanted your brain rotted thoughts to be Peer Reviewed, you might have just needed to vent- you might've been hoping for some comfort, to get things off your chest. Well, don't! Don't talk about thoughts or feelings that are negative with your friends, you'd be burdening them and that's only meant for THERAPY. #SponsoredbyBetterHelp #MentalHealth like, DAMN. that's so helpful. you're so good at helping. I um really liked the part where these are all hard and fast rules that encourage keeping feelings bottled up and keeping your friends at arm's length. That's really funny of you.

[wordfather]

nice post you got there. mind if i get unreasonably mad about it and assume things about you and start arguments on your posts? i dont care im gonna do it anyway. also by 'nice' i mean evil. which you are btw

[thepoisonroom]

can i make a post about being irritated by antimaskers as a disabled person without annoying people trying to condescendingly explain accommodations for my disability to me! btw!

[kingzombear]

maybe we can find better anti ai posts that don’t cite God’s Intention as the reason to favor art by real artists? aren’t creativity and environmental concerns enough

anon I promise you I'm the furthest thing from Christian and "as god intended" is a turn of phrase not Literal Divinity, you've gotta be fucking kidding me rn 💀

[elljayvee]

Today I'm more than usually annoyed with a pop science article, so I'm going to talk about reading these sorts of articles, why you should always be skeptical of claims in them, and some of the ways you can tell the article's author didn't understand what they were reading and told you the wrong thing.

I clicked on an article in Eating Well about low bone density and dementia, because my mother has both. There's not a lot we can do for her now, but I am a curious person. I know Eating Well isn't great at science interpretation and communication, so I'm anticipating that I'm going to need to read the original study already, going in. (How do I know Eating Well isn't a great source usually? Well, I have read it before, and it has some really clear biases if you read a few articles that aren't science communication, and so you get to know a source over time like that. Regardless of how, I'm already suspicious they're not going to do a great job.)

The article is talking about research that shows low bone density may be predictive of dementia risk. It is written by a journalist and reviewed by a dietician. Now, I don't know what review the dietician did, but she did a bad job, and also, so did the journalist, because THE FIRST red flag that goes up is pretty quick: the math is very, very clearly wrong.

This says there are 3651 participants, and that over 11 years, 688 of them developed dementia. This is 18.8% and the article calls it 19%. That's fair! Not a red flag so far, just rounding. Then it says that of the 1211 people with lowest bone density at the start, 90 people (7.4%) developed dementia, and of the 1211 with highest bone density, only 57 (4.7%) did.

This IS a red flag. It's a GIANT red flag. This red flag can be seen from SPACE by anyone who knows how percentages work.

Here's how: You have 3651 people. 1211 of them are in the low bone density group, 1211 of them are in the high bone density group, leaving 1249 people. You have 688 total dementia cases, but your high and low groups account for only 147 of them, leaving 541 cases for that middle group. That's a LOT of cases. That middle tertile, just eyeballing it, has to have about 40% of its people with dementia -- that makes low bone density look like it predicts LOWER dementia risk relative to the middle group.

I can write out the equations for you two ways:

3651 - 1211 - 1211 = 1249 688 - 90 - 57 = 541 541/1249 = 0.433 0.433(100) = 43.3%

Because I am someone who does a fair amount of stats for a living, though, what I noticed was pretty much this equation:

0.074(1211) + x(1249) + 0.047(1211) = 0.19(3651) and I knew immediately that x had to be MUCH bigger than it should, which indeed the math bears out: x(1249) = 0.19(3651) - 0.074(1211) - 0.047(1211) x(1249) = 694 - 90 - 57 x = 547/1249 = 0.438 0.438(100) = 43.8%

That 694 is because the authors rounded 18.8 to 19 earlier, not because I can't math. So, due to rounding, you get slightly different answers -- but BOTH of them point to something SERIOUSLY WRONG with the reporting. What is actually going on in that middle tertile? Where do these numbers come from? Well, lucky us, they mention the name of an author, a journal, and a date. Always be wary of pop sci articles that don't give you a way to track down the original, but giving you that way to track things down doesn't mean they aren't still doing a crummy job with their reporting, as we see here.

The original paper is Association of Bone Mineral Density and Dementia: The Rotterdam Study, published March 2023 in Neurology. This is a pretty technical article with a fair amount of math and things in parens etc. etc. and tables and lots of measurements. The table captions are often not the greatest, which makes it a bit harder to read and interpret. For example, in Table 1, items are listed as number(number) and this can be any of:

count (percent) -- this one's usually labeled in the table itself

mean (standard deviation)

median (interquartile range) -- these last two are NOT labeled in the table, so we don't know which set of numbers is which.

Great. Thanks guys. Assuming what's called a "normal distribution" mean (SD) and median (IQR) numbers will be similar, but they're not the same and I'm irritated they're conflated but OK. Soldiering on!

The original study looked at several different measures of bone density, and found only ONE of them to show predictive ability for dementia: the density of the femoral neck. This means that for their article, Eating Well should have looked at the results for femoral neck bone density, which we find in Table 2:

You have the actual numbers for 5 years, 10 years, and study end, as well as the hazard risk (HR) for each bone density tertile, with the highest tertile set as the standard. Numbers in the HR column have 1 as a reference point -- lower than 1 is lower risk than the highest tertile, and higher than 1 is higher risk.

The first thing I noticed is that neither 57 nor 90 occur in the femoral neck section at ALL. Those numbers from the Eating Well article are just not there. I also notice that the other numbers don't align even one little bit -- the number of total cases of dementia is different, for example. I do notice that the column with the 10 year followup has numbers in it close to 57 and 90 (49, 67, 86, totaled to 202) and that the overall numbers for the total study are much higher -- 201, 236, 229. Interesting.

At this point, I just straight-up search the paper for "90", and I find it in Table 2....in the total bone density section, which the paper's authors have said is NOT the section that showed possible predictive results. I search for "57", and also find that in total bone density, and also....wow the EW author straight up failed to read. This is actually worse than I thought.

Read across, these are the 5 year followup numbers (first 2 columns - count and HR), 10 year (middle 2 columns), and total followup numbers (last 2 columns).

We see our friends 57 and 90 in the 10 year columns. 90 is, as described in the EW article, in the lowest bone density tertile, but 57 is NOT in the highest bone density tertile. It's in the middle tertile. The actual number for the highest tertile is 68. Additionally, the total cases for 10 years is nowhere near that 688 number -- it's 215. We only get total case numbers close to 688 when we look at the study end numbers: it's 686, in this particular group. If we look at the study end case numbers for highest, middle, and lowest tertiles, we see WHY this particular measure can't be used to predict anything: they are 227 (highest), 227 (middle), and 232 (lowest) -- not significantly different from each other.

We can also see here that this group of people -- people who had total bone density measurements -- is not 3651, but 3633, which is listed across the bottom row. The overall STUDY had 3651, but not all of them had total bone density recorded.

Now we know that the author of the EW article did all of the following:

read the wrong part of Table 2

mixed up middle and high tertile results

reported 10 year results mixed with total followup results (this resulted in the weird math that alerted me something was very very wrong in the first place).

and the person who was supposed to review the article didn't have even the basic math skills to catch the problem -- which she absolutely should have, as a registered dietician. For giggles, I looked up program requirements for a BS in Dietetics. Programs require things like statistics and precalc -- not math heavy, but the math that alerted me to this problem is VERY basic statistical knowledge, like the kind they teach in 6th grade level statistics, which I know because it was literally in my 6th grader's curriculum this past school year. So a registered dietician DEFINITELY had enough math to catch this problem, and should have, and Eating Well should be ashamed of itself.

SO. What can we learn from this?

Well, science communication is a skill set. Some people have worked very hard to develop that skill set and are excellent at it -- but lots of people do not have it, and even those who do can make mistakes. Many, many pop sci articles are not written by trained science communicators, or people with any education in how to read scientific articles, or people with good reading comprehension, even. It's very common for pop sci articles to have these sorts of errors in them. Therefore:

Always read pop sci articles with a skeptical eye. Ask yourself:

Do these numbers line up? Usually the math in pop sci articles is not very complex -- you can often do some basic arithmetic to make sure it even makes sense, as was the case here.

Does one part of the article seem to contradict another part of the article?

Do I feel confused about what exactly I'm being told? What's not clear about it?

Am I being told about HOW something works or WHY it works or both? Are those two things being conflated somehow?

Is there a link or way to find the original research? If not, my advice is to throw the whole article away. If yes, you can go check it out -- often just looking at the abstract or results section will be enough, and abstracts usually aren't paywalled even if the rest of the article is. You would be surprised how many times the abstract says "we found X" and the pop sci article says "the researchers found Y".

Could I explain this article to someone and have it make sense? If not, why not?

Is the article confusing correlation (these things happen together) with causation (one of these things causes the other)?

Pop sci articles, like other journalistic articles, are extremely subject to bias issues from the publication they're in. A lot of people tend to read pop sci articles as neutral, factual reporting, but they aren't! I mentioned EW's biases earlier -- the one I think is most relevant to how their article is written is a pervasive belief that if you just eat the right things in the right amounts you will be thin and healthy and stave off all kinds of problems. They close their article by mentioning that, although the study's authors are clear that this connection is unlikely to be causative, and that risk factors for low bone density and dementia have substantial overlap, readers should act like it might be causitive with diet and exercise choices that promote bone health. They were so excited to get to their point about fixing your diet that they didn't pay attention to the actual science they were reporting on. (Sidenote: actual scientific journal articles are supposed to be neutral, factual reporting. They also aren't actually that, but there are some measures in place around this to try to prevent the worst effects of bias.)

It's worth brushing up some basic math skills. You don't need to know a lot! Very basic information will help you better understand a lot of articles -- both ones that are accurate and well-written, and ones that are shoddy and should not have been published. I really like Larry Gonick's The Cartoon Guide to Statistics but if your grasp of percentages is shaky, it will be too advanced. A good option might be something like The I Hate Mathematics! Book, which is pretty old but really accessible, but there's probably some newer great ones out there that I just don't know about.

[lazywitchling]

Why do I keep looking at my dash and seeing

“THEYRE FORCING ALGORITHM ON US”

followed by staff being like

“We’re not switching to an algorithm”

followed again by users being like

“HOW DARE THEY FORCE THE ALGORITHM”

[literallyautistic]

jjk fans who saw sukuna lose and admit he was wrong to mahito and calling it disney kaisen just forgot about the entire rest of the story huh.

[bringinghometherain]

Not thrilled to see that "piss on the poor" reading comprehension is becoming a nationwide issue