What everybody has said here. I’ve got cans that have gas from years ago between the boat, weedeater, lawn mower motor cycle etc. I keep a little shy of 20 gallons on hand and cycle through it first in first out. That run just fine in anything I put it in. The 2 cycle mixed gas is the worst offender as I use so little of it it might take me years to make it through a gallon.

That said three weeks is nothing. The gas I put in the chainsaw two weeks ago had been in the can since the last administration, and it cranked up and ran without fail for hours, the only time it quit was when it ran out.

Fart into my cupped hand while making (and not breaking eye contact) and proceed to “throw” it in the interviewers general direction. (Extra points if you can do this with a straight face)

There’s two things that could get it acting right that I can think of: Replace the cylinder (expensive, may not work but might) Shim it i.e. find a washer with internal diameter of cylinder pin or smaller and rut it out to the right diameter, then file it down to the width that takes the play out ( couple issues with this, one it’ll increase the flash gap i.e. bigger halos, reduced velocity and increased leading, two potential annealing of the makeshift shim with the fram of the gun) Let us know how it goes

Seconding this one. Looking at the furthest from camera case, my money it that there is play in the cylinder along the axis of the cylinder pin. That case being swollen, just above the rim means one thing, that the case has enough room to move back out of the cylinder while firing to allow that to happen. Overpressure i.e. hot loads may be contributing to an issue you wouldn’t observe with lighter loads. Have you played around using different ammo?

Its still a turtle, but a slimy one. Not salt water catfish slimy, but not dry af run of the mill turtle/tortoise Soft-Shelled Turtle Information And Care - Reptiles Magazine https://share.google/xcvJUoC1q60FoHlSk

No worries, I have to review a few meta -analysis a month. They are not all created equal. But some are trying to help.

There’s a couple thing to keep in mind that might help it make sense. Meta-analyses, though not without merit, don’t always accomplish the intended goals for a few reasons, two of which this study specifically suffers from. The first is that they combine studies that when they were conducted may have looked at the desired treatments and controls, but they often are doing so in different populations (note they stratify results by elderly, cancer patients etc.) I’m not going to on my phone start pulling the references, but I would venture to guess that the included studies have all sorts of specific groups they were targeting which leads to heterogeniety both in effect size but in interpretation of effect size. Think about it this way, if you are using Dat from many studies with different (often very specific) target populations, does it really make sense to combine them to draw conclusions about a some hypothetical population comprised of those people?

The second thing is sample size. A few thousand seems like a lot until you realize the data in question is incidence. Each subject included either had the disease or they didn’t (it’s 0 or 1) nothing in-between and nothing outside. Interval inference for dichotomous data (especially when it gets substratified down like the authors have done here) often lead to results like the plain language summary presented. That is, everything is null because they tried to say too much, with too little data.

Takeaway is don’t read too much into the findings. The authors were certainly trying to earnestly answer the question (probably), but the existing literature and available data came up short.