I guess the fey and intellect devourers will just need to team up to take them down with combined int/wis/charisma saves.

Ah crap you’re right, charm it is then.

Int saves. They make up for their rarity in devastating consequences.

Terrible title. It’s implying the study is something about the accuracy of finger printing. It’s a study where Ai was able to find some similarities in finger prints to different fingers in the same person, and sometimes could guess if they were different fingers from the same person, though not very consistently. I’m not making any judgements on the accuracy of forensic fingerprinting techniques here but that’s not what this article or study is about.

I am known by many names

As a player if I managed to survive the first book, I think I’d immediately go for another. I mean what are the odds he did it to every book? I must know for science

Absolutely. For anyone not familiar, one of the mechanics in call of cthulu is an intelligence roll that if you fail, you’re good, but if you succeed on the roll… Well then your mind correlates all its contents and you go mad

Going mad is part of the fun though

Oh I agree. I’m coming at this from the medicine side though and there’s some specific concerns and criticisms for Cochrane reviews and the meta analysis method in general, though on the whole I generally agree with what they’re going for. A really simplistic example but I think illustrates the point well would be this:

https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459

A meta analysis of the effectiveness of parachutes concludes there is no evidence to suggest their effectiveness, due to lack of high quality double blind randomized controlled trials.

I’m a huge proponent of evidence based medicine, but sometimes people are quick to point to a Cochrane review or other systematic review as biblical scientific dogma that cannot be defied, and don’t consider the nuances of the situation. Like what went into the meta analysis and why? What data might be missing from the meta review and why? Is only including double blind randomized controlled trials the best research method to answer the specific question being addressed? Was everything included together actually comparable? Was the specific question the review asked the right question to ask? How broad can this finding actually be applied?

Part of the problem in this case though was the Cochrane reviews findings being somewhat misrepresented in the popular media by those not familiar with the format or the nuances. No doctor is gonna read that review and rip off their masks when treating covid, flu, or other airborne or droplet diseases. Masks were used in the hospital long before covid and will continue to do so, for good reason.

Good article. Cochrane has its place but also has its issues. I like the phrase mentioned in the article “methodological fetishism” to describe their style.