@CowperKettle Wow, that's high!

At least, mine is always a lot lower than that. But then, mine is just slightly too low :-)

The reference range for the test results at my hospital is 35.0–45.0%, and the reference range for blood tests from Quest Diagnostics is 36.0%–45.0%. They always put the reference ranges on blood test results here, although they don't include any discussion of what it means to be inside or outside the "reference range" or what that term is supposed to mean. It's always up to doctors to interpret the results.

I'm also not sure if the reference range takes into account whether the subject is male or female, so I wonder if you might have a different reference range.

Interesting. Wikipedia says hematocrit "is normally 40% for men and 31% for women.[1]" However, if you click through to the cited reference, it actually says 46% and 38%!

Even more interesting, if you go back in the history of the page, it used to say two more (yet different!) values, with the same source cited.

Oh, gosh.

If you go further back, it has two more yet different values.

I have no idea what's been going on with this page over the last eight years :-)

Am I really the first person to check the first cited source in eight years?

Wikipedia faces replication crisis! News at nine.

@userr2684291 Oh, I'm fine, really.

Actually, a lot better since I started being treated for it.

The only downside is that I kinda have to keep being treated for the rest of my life, but it's only a little thing.

I'm an Irish American. I've never heard this before, though.

For that matter, I don't recall having heard the don't version, just the do version.

To corpora!

It's interesting what a low percentage of speakers natively acquire whom.

It's something most speakers have to be taught to integrate into their language system, like a foreign language.

And you can see that because people who try to pick it up naturally very often come up with other rules, like "use whom when you want to sound more polite or formal":

> Thank you to the editor whom edited my post.

I imagine this is a non-standard marking of formality or politeness.

English speakers, native and non- alike, end up using whom this way not infrequently.

And people are always trying to teach each other the rules for whom, which is funny because the popular descriptions are simply wrong.

Maybe in a century whom will survive only as a marker of formality and have no relationship to case.

The rumors of whom's demise might be exaggerated, but the rumors of its survival might be as well . . .