Jonathan Yaniv, now Jessica Simpson is being charged with Uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm and two counts of criminal mischief. Looks like warrant was issued today.
Attention Kiwifarms, Will Toledo is a modern day John Lennon and Car Seat Headrest is a vastly underrated band. As my New Year's Resolution I command you to listen this album...
Attention Kiwifarms, Will Toledo is a modern day John Lennon and Car Seat Headrest is a vastly underrated band. As my New Year's Resolution I command you to listen this album...
Check out Discovery+'s 15 second TV commercial, 'Onision: In Real Life' from the Video Streaming Services industry. Keep an eye on this page to learn about the songs, characters, and celebrities appearing in this TV commercial. Share it with friends, then discover more great...
Check out Discovery+'s 15 second TV commercial, 'Onision: In Real Life' from the Video Streaming Services industry. Keep an eye on this page to learn about the songs, characters, and celebrities appearing in this TV commercial. Share it with friends, then discover more great...
God willing, Onision will serve the right Chris Hansen this time. I desperately want more down on his luck Chris interviewing IP2 members. That Corrine interview was some of the best content he's ever put out.
Edit: Apparently, all of the info came from now-deleted reddit post that was submitted on October 31. This guy really hates Dream and it shows. The first tweet does a pretty good summary of what's in it. I'm not linking it because it includes a minor, although that part thankfully lacks detail compared to the rest of the post. Archive
Doesn't have a thread, but he was mentioned a few pages back for having one of his speedruns removed. Here's a quick rundown of that and here's the most recent update.
Someone's likely going to do a better job at explaining this than me, but I'll try:
Dream is a famous youtuber, especially in Minecraft, but he's also infamous for his "stans" (stalker fans), aka his fanbase. If you've ever been on Twitter, it's likely that he'll be trending over the most benign, trivial shit that happens to him or around him, like this one:
They're obsessed with this guy. Say anything remotely negative towards him? The autistic fans will dogpile on you for daring to question their role model. If he says 'I love you", the stans will assume that it's directed towards them individually. Dream knows it and used it to his advantage, one of which was influencing an official poll to get a certain mob he liked into the game, saying that he would follow whoever showed proof that they voted for glow squid.
Is he Brittany Venti's brother? Look at how far those eyes are spaced apart. I can fit the continent of Africa in between and have enough space left for 2 galaxies.
That's one nice fucking house he lives in, wow. An indoors pool, walk-in closet... nigga is loaded thanks to his YouTube grift.
Here's a rundown of his speedrun cheating events:
23rd of June, 2020:
Nether update to Mein Krampft included piglin bartering. Give piglin gold (they love it, like a particular tribe), 4.73% they will give you Ender Pearls. Ender Pearls is one of the two vital components to make Eyes of Ender. Up to 12 of these eyes is needed to fill in a portal to visit the End, kill some black dragon queen with exploding beds, and finish the game.
Eyes are required to locate the portal too, throw them. There's a 10% chance of the eye breaking. Realistically, one needs 13 of these eyes to be safe. People use a triangulation method to locate the portal.
The portal frame has a 10% chance of containing one eye. 1% chance for 2, 0.1% chance for 3.... etc.
Another component is Blaze Rods, 50% drop rate from killing a Blaze. Each rod can be crafted into two pieces of Blaze Powder. People typically want 7 to get 14 Blaze Powder.
Blazes spawn naturally, but Nether Fortresses contain spawners, which can spawn up to 6 (or 5 was it?) at once. So that's the preferable method.
All this is stacked on top of surviving in the Nether, managing food, finding a village to get beds to kill the dragon, finding a lava lake to build the Nether Portal, and getting flint from gravel to make a flint and steel to set fires to light up the portal. Flint and steel can also be found in chests. Pearls can be found in chests too.
Compared to 1.14, it's faster but heavily based on RNG. Dream bitched about it constantly, so did many other players.
16th of Oct:
Speedrunner "MinecrAvenger" discovered the discrepancy. Tweet now deleted probably due to faggotry coming from Dream's little queer fans, I found it on wayback machine. archive
Pearl drop rate is 4.73%. In the 6 questionable runs, the chances are 15.41%, tripled.
The mod team began to investigate. 11th of Dec, they dropped a video, and a report that's nearly 20 pages.
Basically, their liberal estimation amounted to a 1 in 7.5 trillion chance for a bunch of players getting such odds. The Blaze Rods I mentioned earlier has a drop rate of 50%, it was also higher in Dream's 6 runs. From a mathematics standpoint, the report is pretty solid.
23rd of Dec, Dream responded. He supposedly paid some Harvard astrophysicist to debunk the moderator's report.
The report was a steaming pile a shit and many people dismantled it. I looked through it myself, it was comical. Lots of people with a background in mathematics and statistics chimed in for the harvest. Reddit verified astrophyscist (He is verified on multiple boards and has 1 million Karma, not the Rick and Morty watching little Redditor cunts we're accustomed to) ARCHIVE
Edit2: Hello brigadeers!
Edit: Executive summary: Whoever wrote that is either deliberately manipulating numbers in favor of Dream or is totally clueless despite having working experience with statistics. Familiarity with the concepts is clearly there, but they are misapplied in absurd ways.
The abstract has problems already, and it only gets worse after that.
The original report accounted for bartering to stop possibly after every single bartering event. It can't get finer than that.
Adding streams done long before to the counts is clearly manipulative, only made to raise the chances. Yes you can do that analysis in addition, but you shouldn't present it as main result if the drop chances vary that much between the series. If you follow this approach Dream could make another livestream with zero pearls and blaze rods and get the overall rate to the expected numbers. Case closed, right?
Edit: I wrote this based on the introduction. Farther down it became clearer what they mean by adding earlier streams, and it's not that bad, but it's still done wrong in a bizarre way.
Yes, because there are billions of places where one in a billion events can happen every day. It's odd to highlight this (repeatedly). All that has been taken into account already to arrive at the 1 in x trillion number.
Ender pearl barters should not be modeled with a binomial distribution because the last barter is not independent and identical to the other barters.
That is such an amateur mistake that it makes me question the overall qualification of the (anonymous) author.
Dream didn't do a single speedrun and then nothing ever again - only in that case it would be a serious concern. What came after a successful bartering in one speedrun attempt? The next speedrun attempt with more bartering. The time spent on other things in between is irrelevant. Oh, and speedrun attempts can also stop if he runs out of gold (or health, or time) without getting enough pearls, which means negative results can end a speedrun. At most you get an effect from stopping speedruns altogether (as he did after the 6 streams). But this has been taken into account by the authors of the original report.
I could read on, but with such an absurd error here there is no chance this analysis can produce anything useful.
Edit: I made the mistake to read a bit more, and there are more absurd errors. I hope no one lets that person make any relevant statistical analysis in astronomy.
The lowest probability will always be from all 11 events.
No it will not. Toy example: Stream 1 has 0/20 blaze drops, stream 2 has 20/20 blaze drops. Stream 2 has a very low p-value (~10-6), stream 1 has a one-sided p-value of 1, streams 1+2 has a p-value of 0.5.
Applying the Bonferroni correction and saying that there are 80 choices for the starting position of the 20 successful coin tosses in the string of 100 cases gives 80/220 = 7.629 × 10−5 or 1 in 13000. But reading over https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Run.html and performing a simple Monte Carlo simulation shows that it is not that simple. The actual odds come out to be about 1 in 6300, clearly better than the supposed ”upper limit” calculated using the methodology in the MST Report.
Learn how to use a calculator or spreadsheet. The actual odds are 1 in 25600 (more details). They are significantly lower than the upper bound because of a strong correlation (a series of 21 counts as two series of 20). The same correlation you get if you consider different sets of consecutive streams. The original authors got it right here.
For example, the probability of three consecutive 1% probability events would have a p-value (from Equation 2 below) of 1.1 × 10−4. The Bonferroni corrected probability is 8.8 × 10−4, but a Monte Carlo simulation gives 70 × 10−4.
From the factor 8 I assume the author means 10 attempts here (it's unstated), although I don't know where the initial p-value is coming from. But then the probability is only 8*10-6, and the author pulls yet another nonsense number out of their hat. Even with 100 attempts the chance is still just 1*10-4. The Bonferroni correction gets better for small probability events as the chance of longer series goes down dramatically.
Yet another edit: I think I largely understand what the author did wrong in the last paragraph. They first calculated the probability of three 1% events in series within 10 events. That has a Bonferroni factor of 8. Then they changed it to two sequential successes, which leads to 10−4 initial p-value (no idea where the factor 1.1 comes from) - but forgot to update the Bonferroni factor to 9. These two errors largely cancel each other, so 8.8 × 10−4 is a good approximation for the chance to get two sequential 1% successes in 10 attempts. For the Monte Carlo simulation, however, they ran series of 100 attempts. That gives a probability of 97.6*10-4 which is indeed much larger. But it's for 10 times the length! You would need to update the Bonferroni correction to 99 and then you get 99*10-4 which is again an upper bound as expected. So we have a couple of sloppy editing mistakes accumulated to come to a wrong conclusion and the author didn't bother to check this for plausibility. All my numbers come from a Markov chain analysis which is much simpler (spreadsheet) and much more robust than Monte Carlo methods, so all digits I gave are significant digits.
From the few code snippets given (by far not enough to track all the different errors):
numpy.random.uniform() is always smaller than 1, which means 4 times the value plus 0.5 is always smaller than 4.5, which means it can only round to 4 or smaller. Add 3 and we get a maximum of 7 pearls instead of 8. Another error that's easy to spot if you actually bother checking things. Answers to frequently asked questions:
I think the original analysis by the mods is fine. It's very conservative (Dream-favoring) in many places.
I'm a particle physicist with a PhD in physics. I have seen comments giving me so many new jobs in the last hours.
Basically, numpy.random.uniform gives a number between 0 and smaller than 1. If you plug say 0.999 into the formula, you'll get something a bit smaller than 4.5, then numpy.round turns it into 4. 4+3 is 7, the maximum possible number from this formula. This is a dimwitted mistake beyond belief. I won't go any deeper. Mathematics wise, the report is pretty shit. That Reddit post explained it better.
The website Dream paid to get the report was photoexcitation.com. The website was inactive for half a dozen years and suddenly became live as the scandal unfolded. Questionable, right?
On around the 30th of Dec, the "DreamWasTaken" subreddit is locked, after several days of massive purges. That legitimate astrophysicist up there was banned too. What a great way to handle dissent. Refugees created "DreamWasTaken2".
I've been following this pile of autism from the beginning because I'm a mathfag. Now given Dream's reaction, I see huge lolcow potential. His fans are some of the dumbest little faggots imaginable. Instead of telling them to behave, he actively coddles them. Would be fine if he left them alone because guilt by association is gay. I never gave a fuck about his fan base, but according to many videos I've listened to, he gets trending for the dumbest shit such as eating something? The cult of personality alone is insanity.
To finalise, check the top video (if not already) which illustrates his notoriety after the manhunt series. I'll admit to liking those.
Attention Kiwifarms, Will Toledo is a modern day John Lennon and Car Seat Headrest is a vastly underrated band. As my New Year's Resolution I command you to listen this album...
Me and a guy I know have a bet on whether Will Toledo will get me-too'd by a vulnerable young male fan. I'm Team Yes, he's Team No. Thanks for reminding me to check.
Is he Brittany Venti's brother? Look at how far those eyes are spaced apart. I can fit the continent of Africa in between and have enough space left for 2 galaxies.
That's one nice fucking house he lives in, wow. An indoors pool, walk-in closet... nigga is loaded thanks to his YouTube grift. View attachment 1823418
Here's a good video for starters:
Here's a rundown of his speedrun cheating events:
23rd of June, 2020:
Nether update to Mein Krampft included piglin bartering. Give piglin gold (they love it, like a particular tribe), 4.73% they will give you Ender Pearls. Ender Pearls is one of the two vital components to make Eyes of Ender. Up to 12 of these eyes is needed to fill in a portal to visit the End, kill some black dragon queen with exploding beds, and finish the game.
Eyes are required to locate the portal too, throw them. There's a 10% chance of the eye breaking. Realistically, one needs 13 of these eyes to be safe. People use a triangulation method to locate the portal.
The portal frame has a 10% chance of containing one eye. 1% chance for 2, 0.1% chance for 3.... etc.
Another component is Blaze Rods, 50% drop rate from killing a Blaze. Each rod can be crafted into two pieces of Blaze Powder. People typically want 7 to get 14 Blaze Powder.
Blazes spawn naturally, but Nether Fortresses contain spawners, which can spawn up to 6 (or 5 was it?) at once. So that's the preferable method.
All this is stacked on top of surviving in the Nether, managing food, finding a village to get beds to kill the dragon, finding a lava lake to build the Nether Portal, and getting flint from gravel to make a flint and steel to set fires to light up the portal. Flint and steel can also be found in chests. Pearls can be found in chests too.
Compared to 1.14, it's faster but heavily based on RNG. Dream bitched about it constantly, so did many other players.
16th of Oct:
Speedrunner "MinecrAvenger" discovered the discrepancy. Tweet now deleted probably due to faggotry coming from Dream's little queer fans, I found it on wayback machine. archive View attachment 1823394
Pearl drop rate is 4.73%. In the 6 questionable runs, the chances are 15.41%, tripled.
The mod team began to investigate. 11th of Dec, they dropped a video, and a report that's nearly 20 pages.
Basically, their liberal estimation amounted to a 1 in 7.5 trillion chance for a bunch of players getting such odds. The Blaze Rods I mentioned earlier has a drop rate of 50%, it was also higher in Dream's 6 runs. From a mathematics standpoint, the report is pretty solid.
23rd of Dec, Dream responded. He supposedly paid some Harvard astrophysicist to debunk the moderator's report.
The report was a steaming pile a shit and many people dismantled it. I looked through it myself, it was comical. Lots of people with a background in mathematics and statistics chimed in for the harvest. Reddit verified astrophyscist (He is verified on multiple boards and has 1 million Karma, not the Rick and Morty watching little Redditor cunts we're accustomed to) ARCHIVE
Edit2: Hello brigadeers!
Edit: Executive summary: Whoever wrote that is either deliberately manipulating numbers in favor of Dream or is totally clueless despite having working experience with statistics. Familiarity with the concepts is clearly there, but they are misapplied in absurd ways.
The abstract has problems already, and it only gets worse after that.
The original report accounted for bartering to stop possibly after every single bartering event. It can't get finer than that.
Adding streams done long before to the counts is clearly manipulative, only made to raise the chances. Yes you can do that analysis in addition, but you shouldn't present it as main result if the drop chances vary that much between the series. If you follow this approach Dream could make another livestream with zero pearls and blaze rods and get the overall rate to the expected numbers. Case closed, right?
Edit: I wrote this based on the introduction. Farther down it became clearer what they mean by adding earlier streams, and it's not that bad, but it's still done wrong in a bizarre way.
Yes, because there are billions of places where one in a billion events can happen every day. It's odd to highlight this (repeatedly). All that has been taken into account already to arrive at the 1 in x trillion number.
That is such an amateur mistake that it makes me question the overall qualification of the (anonymous) author.
Dream didn't do a single speedrun and then nothing ever again - only in that case it would be a serious concern. What came after a successful bartering in one speedrun attempt? The next speedrun attempt with more bartering. The time spent on other things in between is irrelevant. Oh, and speedrun attempts can also stop if he runs out of gold (or health, or time) without getting enough pearls, which means negative results can end a speedrun. At most you get an effect from stopping speedruns altogether (as he did after the 6 streams). But this has been taken into account by the authors of the original report.
I could read on, but with such an absurd error here there is no chance this analysis can produce anything useful.
Edit: I made the mistake to read a bit more, and there are more absurd errors. I hope no one lets that person make any relevant statistical analysis in astronomy.
No it will not. Toy example: Stream 1 has 0/20 blaze drops, stream 2 has 20/20 blaze drops. Stream 2 has a very low p-value (~10-6), stream 1 has a one-sided p-value of 1, streams 1+2 has a p-value of 0.5.
Learn how to use a calculator or spreadsheet. The actual odds are 1 in 25600 (more details). They are significantly lower than the upper bound because of a strong correlation (a series of 21 counts as two series of 20). The same correlation you get if you consider different sets of consecutive streams. The original authors got it right here.
From the factor 8 I assume the author means 10 attempts here (it's unstated), although I don't know where the initial p-value is coming from. But then the probability is only 8*10-6, and the author pulls yet another nonsense number out of their hat. Even with 100 attempts the chance is still just 1*10-4. The Bonferroni correction gets better for small probability events as the chance of longer series goes down dramatically.
Yet another edit: I think I largely understand what the author did wrong in the last paragraph. They first calculated the probability of three 1% events in series within 10 events. That has a Bonferroni factor of 8. Then they changed it to two sequential successes, which leads to 10−4 initial p-value (no idea where the factor 1.1 comes from) - but forgot to update the Bonferroni factor to 9. These two errors largely cancel each other, so 8.8 × 10−4 is a good approximation for the chance to get two sequential 1% successes in 10 attempts. For the Monte Carlo simulation, however, they ran series of 100 attempts. That gives a probability of 97.6*10-4 which is indeed much larger. But it's for 10 times the length! You would need to update the Bonferroni correction to 99 and then you get 99*10-4 which is again an upper bound as expected. So we have a couple of sloppy editing mistakes accumulated to come to a wrong conclusion and the author didn't bother to check this for plausibility. All my numbers come from a Markov chain analysis which is much simpler (spreadsheet) and much more robust than Monte Carlo methods, so all digits I gave are significant digits.
From the few code snippets given (by far not enough to track all the different errors):
numpy.random.uniform() is always smaller than 1, which means 4 times the value plus 0.5 is always smaller than 4.5, which means it can only round to 4 or smaller. Add 3 and we get a maximum of 7 pearls instead of 8. Another error that's easy to spot if you actually bother checking things. Answers to frequently asked questions:
I think the original analysis by the mods is fine. It's very conservative (Dream-favoring) in many places.
I'm a particle physicist with a PhD in physics. I have seen comments giving me so many new jobs in the last hours.
Basically, numpy.random.uniform gives a number between 0 and smaller than 1. If you plug say 0.999 into the formula, you'll get something a bit smaller than 4.5, then numpy.round turns it into 4. 4+3 is 7, the maximum possible number from this formula. This is a dimwitted mistake beyond belief. I won't go any deeper. Mathematics wise, the report is pretty shit. That Reddit post explained it better.
The website Dream paid to get the report was photoexcitation.com. The website was inactive for half a dozen years and suddenly became live as the scandal unfolded. Questionable, right?
On around the 30th of Dec, the "DreamWasTaken" subreddit is locked, after several days of massive purges. That legitimate astrophysicist up there was banned too. What a great way to handle dissent. Refugees created "DreamWasTaken2".
I've been following this pile of autism from the beginning because I'm a mathfag. Now given Dream's reaction, I see huge lolcow potential. His fans are some of the dumbest little faggots imaginable. Instead of telling them to behave, he actively coddles them. Would be fine if he left them alone because guilt by association is gay. I never gave a fuck about his fan base, but according to many videos I've listened to, he gets trending for the dumbest shit such as eating something? The cult of personality alone is insanity.
To finalise, check the top video (if not already) which illustrates his notoriety after the manhunt series. I'll admit to liking those.
www.ispot.tv
