I am astounded how many commenters don’t seem to get the pun
It got reports for it. 🥹
Confusing-ass perspective. It looks like all the archers are standing with their left foot forward and holding the bow in their right hand.
So bad that it is good again.
AI photography is so stupid. That target’s got legs. Handsome ones, too.
Looks realistic to me!
Surely it’d be easy to just find an actual stock photo to use here. But it doesn’t matter because the background just needed to be Whatever.
That write-up is well worth the read.
On your advice, I read it. Good essay. Yes, the image is Whatever, but the creative part for this post was the pun, so I still gave it an upvote because I haven’t heard it death.
Yeah, I upvoted it too
Also they all hold the bows completely wrong.
Angled arm, turned the wrong side, wtf?
That’s just the new range staffer holding the target. Materials are expensive with the tariffs and all, so you gotta cut costs somewhere.
That’s the intern not a staffer. Kind of you to assume they are people.
I’m still deciding if the payoff was worth the buildup.
Image: Bad AI.
Text: Bad AI.
Source: Bad AI.
Neither the name of the effect nor the story turn up any results on google.
This is not a science meme, but instead a “My first AI meme”.
Image: Bad AI (true)
Text: I’ll bet it’s written by a human.
Source: It’s a joke!
See other comments if you missed it
You missed the pun.
Fair.
Lemmy users not crying about AI challenge: impossible
Lemmy users crying about AI seems to be as common as AI users calling themselves creative. I wonder if there’s a correlation?
AI users not giving me eye cancer challenge: impossible
RIP your eyes friend, who knew something so inconsequential would ruin them so badly. I hope you find peace in blindness.
Am I missing a joke?
Placebo <=> plus c bow
ohh, tanks!
The joke is they failed to isolate the variable
“Looks like a textbook case of regression to the meme.”
and the 49 others
“The only thing they absorbed was a regression to the beam — the arrow beam.” “Who knew Vitamin C causes regression to the keen eye?” “When stats and supplements collide: regression to the green (bullseye).” “Turns out confidence is the real supplement — powered by regression to the believe.” “Or maybe they just regressed to the mean… skill level.” “That performance boost? Just a natural regression to the scene.” “Archery improvement through citrus? More like regression to the scheme.” “They didn’t level up. The top archers just regressed to the lean.” "Proof that a placebo is the best coach: regression to the mean. “They didn’t get better — the universe just whispered: regress to the mean.” “Turns out Vitamin C stands for Cleverly Explained Regression to the Mean.” “Performance arrows pointed up… but so did statistical bias: regression to the seen.” “Some call it magic. Statisticians call it regression to the mundane.” “It’s not the C — it’s the statistical destiny of regression to the mean.” “Next up: a study on whether laughter also causes regression to the meme.” “The bows weren’t juiced — the results just regressed to the clean.” “They didn’t gain skill, the others just had a bad day: regression to the lean.” “Vitamin C doesn’t boost skill — the numbers just had a date with regression to the mean.” “This study sponsored by: Misinterpretation of Regression to the Mean™.” “Plot twist: the arrows didn’t improve — the stats just regressed to the serene.” “Amazing what belief — and regression to the mean — can do.” “The real target hit here? Regression to the mean. Bullseye!” “They didn’t shoot better. Stats just had their say: regress to the mean.” “When low-skill archers shoot better, you either call it a miracle or regression to the mean.” “It wasn’t the Vitamin C — it was the C-cret power of regression to the mean.” “You can coat the bow, but you can’t coat the stats: regression to the mean always wins.” “It’s all fun and games until someone explains regression to the mean at a party.” “They didn’t absorb energy — just a strong dose of statistical probability a.k.a. regression to the mean.” “Just a classic case of skill balancing out: the old regression to the quiver.” “Vitamin C? More like Vitamin See: Regression to the Mean at Work.” “A placebo a day keeps the stats in play — regression to the mean in action.” “Even arrows can’t escape the gravitational pull of regression to the mean.” “They shot better, sure — but that was just the sweet sting of regression to the beam.” “Archers rise, others fall — the stats always call for regression to the mean.” “Welcome to the archery bell curve — where we all regress to the mean.” “You don’t need Vitamin C when you’re already due for a regression to the mean.” “This study is brought to you by the letter C… and regression to the mean.” “Everyone loves a good comeback — especially one powered by regression to the mean.” “Forget bows. The real force here was regression to the unseen.” “Is it magic? Nope. Just your friendly neighborhood regression to the mean.” “This is why we can’t have nice data — it all regresses to the mean.” “Turns out ‘getting better’ was just them catching a ride on the regression to the mean bus.” “The arrows didn’t improve. The curve just regressed toward equilibrium.” “Vitamin C: the leading cause of misattributed regression to the mean.” “If you listen closely, you can hear statisticians screaming: ‘It’s just regression to the mean!’” “Let’s not bow down to pseudoscience — this is pure regression to the scene.” “Don’t let this data fool you — it’s just regression to the extreme.” “When skill varies wildly, the only constant is regression to the mean.” “One day you’re bottom 50, the next you’re top… thank you, regression to the dream.”
Placebo hellowa drug.
Yeah, so much so that people believe this meme is reality, even though google turns up not a single result for “plus c bow effect” that has anything to do with archery. Neither does any google search on the story.
The whole post is placebo, aka pure AI slop.
Looks like foreground guy is drawing across range.
I think he’s going for the live target holding a target.
Good thing none of them exist.
If the second group performed “far better” than the first group then this isn’t regression to the mean, is it? I would expect the gap to be much less or even eliminated but for the Plus C Bow group to do much better there should be something else at play, right?
Yeah, plus the selection process was weird. Any gains attributed to the plus-C bow group just throws question to the initial rankings.
They should have done a crossover trial, where group A is a random selection of archers initially getting no C bows, and then later getting them, and vice versa for group B. Paired t-tests, y’all!
Yeah, but the meme is a joke about how you can prove anything with regression to the mean. If all archers are equally good and we test them we would get varying results. If we then split them on performance and perform an intervention and test again then the “poor performing” group will do much better. Because it’s just random noise.
Oh I see, thanks
😠
☺️
It works!