Exactly . He ' s half human half planet . One infinity stone isn ' t gonna hurt him <| sep |> anyone would think planets are made up of a lot of mass . <| sep |> boring point fighter who dances around the octagon . hope Cody knocks him out . <| sep |> Lets go fishin . <| sep |> That ' s true i just find it funny that a nation who has landed on the moon has people who doesn ' t know the difference between a planet and a star , even worse they are on tv spreading their stupidity . <| sep |> Ask a female neighbor ? <| sep |> Great ! It sounds like you did broadly do things correctly , so the first half of my criticism is less applicable . Others may disagree , but given the context of this entire affair I don ' t think that this really needs any statistical testing at all . I ' m approaching this not just from the standpoint of study design but also from the standpoint of effective communication . The dataset is sufficiently small and the anomaly you ' re trying to illustrate is sufficiently extreme that you could simply have presented a visualization of the raw data and pointed out the relevant parts . You did tabulate the raw data , but it wasn ' t done so in a particularly intuitive way there ' s a lot of potential there for misunderstanding . If I did want to test the hypothesis of uniformly distributed data , I would have written up the explanation in a much clearer and more concise fashion . Given your additional information , I don ' t think you really made any substantial like , analysisbreaking errors that I can spot but there are many minor mistakes which indicate carelessness , e . g . when you write p p 16 0 . 003125 which is , as written , actually just a false statement for all nonzero p . I ' m worried that readers will see a long wall of text that they struggle to understand , notice some mathematical terminology thrown in , and then assume that it ' s all done completely accurately and therefore conclude that someone is guilty of falsifying combo videos . In this particular case , I actually agree with the conclusion , but I really disagree with the way this was presented , because a huge majority of the readers will just be taking the correctness of your analysis on faith alone . tldr It ' s never only about running the statistical tests alone and getting a numerically correct answer after following all the right rituals and chanting the right incantations even though doing so is very important , and I ' m happy to say that the additional information you provided indicates that you did do things properly . As soon as more than one person looks at your results , all of that gets tied up in effective communication , contextual nuances , and so on and so forth .