And that is exactly why survivorship bias doesn't apply.Vegas » 27 Nov 2022, 9:16 pm » wrote: ↑ @Blackvegetable No need for you to post it. Let me help you out: Your concept suggests that it relates to dead people.
No....it can be any "perishable" data point.Your concept suggests that it relates to dead people.
No....yours was...Vegas » 27 Nov 2022, 9:20 pm » wrote: ↑ The definition from the statisticians is ****? Ok.
Speaking of writes itself:
You thought survivorship bias referred to dead presidents you stupid asshole.Blackvegetable » 27 Nov 2022, 10:21 pm » wrote: ↑ And that is exactly why survivorship bias doesn't apply.
**** idiot. The more you try and slither out of this, the dumber you look. So please, continue...Blackvegetable » Today, 6:20 pm » wrote: ↑
Presidents don't drop out of the rankings because they die.
vegas,Vegas » 27 Nov 2022, 10:53 pm » wrote: ↑ You thought survivorship bias referred to dead presidents you stupid asshole.
Look:
**** idiot. The more you try and slither out of this, the dumber you look. So please, continue...
You don't understand it..
Oh God, here we go with you making up **** trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.Blackvegetable » 28 Nov 2022, 8:07 am » wrote: ↑
You know....where you thought survivorship bias is the same as non-random sampling.
Because you're a moron.
You know how this goes.Vegas » 28 Nov 2022, 11:57 am » wrote: ↑ Oh God, here we go with you making up **** trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.
Dude, you **** up. Ok? You **** up.
The longer you try and slither out of this the more I will continue to humiliate you.
Vegas » 28 Nov 2022, 11:57 am » wrote: ↑ Oh God, here we go with you making up **** trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.
Dude, you **** up. Ok? You **** up.
The longer you try and slither out of this the more I will continue to humiliate you.
**** gibberish.on another note, you are making a "survivorship bias" fallacy. And **** you if you think I am going to define that for you.
Like I said, I am not your mother. Look it up.
You are focusing on the insufficiency of the Republican sample, while over looking the obvious systematic favoring of the dimocrat sample. Then, in all of your wisdom, you think that should be narrowed to a just a republican population as unreliable, when the population included the dims, repubs, and independents. You can't **** cherry pick the population of one over the other. That's the whole point of accurate sampling
Blackvegetable » 28 Nov 2022, 12:32 pm » wrote: ↑ You know how this goes.
I post the link to your words, and you yap something stupid.
I did rebut it.Vegas » 28 Nov 2022, 1:45 pm » wrote: ↑ As usual, no **** reasoning or logic to your rebuttal. Just an insult.
Did Brown University teach you morons that insults and cop-outs equate to legitimate rebuttals?
Acknowledge that you never went to college.
Blackvegetable » 28 Nov 2022, 2:14 pm » wrote: ↑ I did rebut it.
Then I reposted it, for effect.
It's gibberish...
It IS gibberish.Vegas » 28 Nov 2022, 2:42 pm » wrote: ↑ Calling it gibberish is not a rebuttal. It's a copout.
Why do I even have to explain that?
Blackvegetable » 28 Nov 2022, 2:50 pm » wrote: ↑ It IS gibberish.
Would you like for me to go through it and show you?
Vegas » 28 Nov 2022, 3:59 pm » wrote: ↑ You can, but I am 100% convinced you will deflect from it.
This is the issue:
I claimed that you were making the 'survivorship bias"
You responded that dead presidents don't affect the rankings.
Thus, you thought survivorship bias had something to do with presidents who are surviving.
That makes you one dumb mother ****.
Not exactly, Inarticulate Boob.I claimed that you were making the 'survivorship bias"
No....I said that the fact that they died didn't effect the rankings....they don't represent the "invisible subset" which defines "survivorship bias"..You responded that dead presidents don't affect the rankings.
Blackvegetable » 28 Nov 2022, 4:20 pm » wrote: ↑ Not exactly, Inarticulate Boob.
No....I said that the fact that they died didn't effect the rankings....they don't represent the "invisible subset" which defines "survivorship bias"..
The one you can't define in your own gibberish.
What you think you know is inarticulately reflected in your posts.Vegas » 28 Nov 2022, 4:25 pm » wrote: ↑ Nice reframe.
You assumed it meant surviving presidents. Period.
You know it and I know it.
Now shut up.
Blackvegetable » 28 Nov 2022, 4:26 pm » wrote: ↑ What you think you know is inarticulately reflected in your posts.
But I DO know.Vegas » 28 Nov 2022, 4:28 pm » wrote: ↑ LOL! That's the best excuse you can come up with?
All you need to do is admit that you didn't know. But you can't. You are a narcissist.
**** off.