Well you were just arguing about math in things being physics and arguing about research methods here. Funny coincidence - as on conspiracies.win u/clemaneuverers posted about higgs I would say that even if method of people here is vulnerable for confirmation bias,then at worst it is no more vulnerable than modern particle physics in CERN :D XD (Ok, people here would feel nobilitized, but only until they would realise about CERN methods XD But this is probably such for reddit users like you because people on reddit believe everything mainstream to not even check it - for example to not check how standard model verification suck)

I also think that pretty much everyone who tries to explain anything using kwantum fisix probably doesn’t have the level of understanding they think they do

And here you are wrong. Well I have some "understanding",unfortunately very basic one - what is experimentally confirmed and what is not.And it is experimentally confirmed - there is no chance that really random event would behave exactly same way many times. It is not discussion about wave function being piloted or not (anons,it is physical question not planefagging ;) ),variables hidden or not, and WTF is really entagglement (ok,here I have my common sense theory: its name is real clue what may be happening)

Hence in our last discussion related to this - by my opinion and by laws of physics that were really impossible that people here using certain methods were finding things looking like Q related done by people related to Trump administration. Of course that NOT confirms Q itself,that ONLY confirms that people related to Trump administration look like communicating within Q's "framework".