Liberal Forum

To give some backstory here, I was exposing Veghead's stupid article about his usual presidential rankings. He was using a fallacy that is called "survivorship bias." Now, I don't expect people to know offhand what that means. However, given how much Veghead brags that he has superior aptitude in stats...and math in general, there was no need for me to define the fallacy. He should already know since it's a common term in stats. So, what did he think it meant? He took it literally and thought it meant dead presidents. LOL! The bolded quote at the end proves how intellectually superior he is.   

I am left with no choice, but to publicly embarrass him. 

@Blackvegetable  I will never let you live this gem down. 
Survivorship bias = dead presidents.   

Vegas » 22 Nov 2022, 6:09 pm » wrote: ↑
22 Nov 2022, 6:09 pm

Blackvegetable » 22 Nov 2022, 3:37 pm » wrote: ↑
22 Nov 2022, 3:37 pm
Yes.....that's why the conclusion of the sample of Republicans and conservatives is less reliable than the conclusion of the entire population surveyed.

Acknowledge that you've been answered.....again.

Read all of this you piece of ****. Not just 5 words. 

@Blackvegetable  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. 

Acknowledge that you are dumb as hell.

 

Blackvegetable » 22 Nov 2022, 6:20 pm » wrote: ↑
22 Nov 2022, 6:20 pm

Vegas » 22 Nov 2022, 6:17 pm » wrote: ↑
22 Nov 2022, 6:17 pm
Yeah, I didn't expect you to know what that was. 

Nor did I expect you to look it up. 

Acknowledge that you lied again.

It's exactly because I do know that I know you are a **** moron.

Presidents don't drop out of the rankings because they die.

**** idiot.

 

Vegas » 29 Nov 2022, 3:09 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2022, 3:09 pm

To give some backstory here, I was exposing Veghead's stupid article about his usual presidential rankings. He was using a fallacy that is called "survivorship bias." Now, I don't expect people to know offhand what that means. However, given how much Veghead brags that he has superior aptitude in stats...and math in general, there was no need for me to define the fallacy. He should already know since it's a common term in stats. So, what did he think it meant? He took it literally and thought it meant dead presidents. LOL! The bolded quote at the end proves how intellectually superior he is.  :rofl:  

I am left with no choice, but to publicly embarrass him. 

I will never let you live this gem down. 
Survivorship bias = dead presidents.  :rofl:  

A denier has full faith nobody can prove or disprove any or all realit/y/ies using the facts allowed in a court of law. Intellectual minds demand being physically removed for the optics of becoming the victim of circumstance and nobody knows the specifics to eternal separation of current population socially, statistically, scientifically, or spiritually.

omh » 29 Nov 2022, 3:15 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2022, 3:15 pm

A denier has full faith nobody can prove or disprove any or all realit/y/ies using the facts allowed in a court of law.

He wouldn't know a fact if it bent him over a hot stove and raw **** him in the ***. 

Vegas » 29 Nov 2022, 3:15 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2022, 3:15 pm

He wouldn't know a fact if it bent him over a hot stove and raw **** him in the ***. 

everyone knows facts have to be in context, not ancestral evolving positions like specific reproductions are in plain sight. Reality protects character wannabe with reasonable doubt anything is possible when nobody knows everything about genetic self containment per ancestor occupying space now.
I busted that myth 16 years ago and there isn't a social identity that accepts it.

I even explain compounding DNA and everyone just ignores it when I explain time is immovable and all they know is relative time changes everything from actual results to factual maybe anything else did it.

omh » 29 Nov 2022, 3:21 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2022, 3:21 pm

I even explain compounding DNA and everyone just ignores it when I explain 

I don't think you know the real reason as to why people ignore your posts. 

Vegas » 29 Nov 2022, 3:22 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2022, 3:22 pm

I don't think you know the real reason as to why people ignore your posts. 

accept what I say and each has to admit their entire ancestry enabled the corruption governing this species since dawn of civilization, that 6,000 year benchmark of humanity took over the natural living process using vernacular tribalism.

I do understand what motivates others to ignore anything I say. my wife still does. But I tolerate her because I do love her unconditionally. She doesn't think so though because I am done trying to prove it to her.

@Huey  please accept my apologies. I know it is your turn to induce a Mary meltdown. However, it looks like I went out of turn. I triggered him something fierce. I'll give you another turn to make up for it. 

Vegas » 29 Nov 2022, 3:09 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2022, 3:09 pm

To give some backstory here, I was exposing Veghead's stupid article about his usual presidential rankings. He was using a fallacy that is called "survivorship bias." Now, I don't expect people to know offhand what that means. However, given how much Veghead brags that he has superior aptitude in stats...and math in general, there was no need for me to define the fallacy. He should already know since it's a common term in stats. So, what did he think it meant? He took it literally and thought it meant dead presidents. LOL! The bolded quote at the end proves how intellectually superior he is.   

I am left with no choice, but to publicly embarrass him. 

@Blackvegetable  I will never let you live this gem down. 
Survivorship bias = dead presidents. 

Now to humiliate the Narcissist...


It's called "SURVIVORSHIP BIAS" for a reason.
 

The most famous example of survivorship bias dates back to World War Two. At the time, the American military asked mathematician Abraham Wald to study how best to protect airplanes from being shot down. The military knew armour would help, but couldn’t protect the whole plane or would be too heavy to fly well. Initially, their plan had been to examine the planes returning from combat, see where they were hit the worst – the wings, around the tail gunner and down the centre of the body – and then reinforce those areas. 

But Wald realised they had fallen prey to survivorship bias, because their analysis was missing a valuable part of the picture: the planes that were hit but that hadn’t made it back. As a result, the military were planning to armour precisely the wrong parts of the planes. The bullet holes they were looking at actually indicated the areas a plane could be hit and keep flying – exactly the areas that didn't need reinforcing.


https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20 ... e-mistakes


 

@Vegas  is a moron.

QED

Blackvegetable » 29 Nov 2022, 5:32 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2022, 5:32 pm

The most famous example of survivorship bias dates back to World War Two. At the time, the American military asked mathematician Abraham Wald to study how best to protect airplanes from being shot down. The military knew armour would help, but couldn’t protect the whole plane or would be too heavy to fly well. Initially, their plan had been to examine the planes returning from combat, see where they were hit the worst – the wings, around the tail gunner and down the centre of the body – and then reinforce those areas. 

But Wald realised they had fallen prey to survivorship bias, because their analysis was missing a valuable part of the picture: the planes that were hit but that hadn’t made it back. As a result, the military were planning to armour precisely the wrong parts of the planes. The bullet holes they were looking at actually indicated the areas a plane could be hit and keep flying – exactly the areas that didn't need reinforcing.


https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20 ... e-mistakes


 

Somewhere there is a old joke wrapped up in your comment, Guy goes to the doctor and says "it hurts when I raise my arms above my head.", and the doctor says "Don't raise your arms above your head.". Charges him $50 buck for the office visit.

omh » 29 Nov 2022, 5:39 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2022, 5:39 pm

Somewhere there is a old joke wrapped up in your comment, Guy goes to the doctor and says "it hurts when I raise my arms above my head.", and the doctor says "Don't raise your arms above your head.". Charges him $50 buck for the office visit.

Stapled shut.

@Vegas  is a moron.


 

@Cannonpointer  

@Deezer Shoove  


Not even you two dim cock suckers can deny that I field dressed your little pet in an epic fashion.

Accordingly, I demand that I be given my due..

The authority to banish the Moron @Vegas  .

This thread is to be pinned for the entire duration of his exile.

@Vegas   you asswhipped little bitch..


Where did you run to?

 

Vegas » 29 Nov 2022, 3:09 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2022, 3:09 pm

To give some backstory here, I was exposing Veghead's stupid article about his usual presidential rankings. He was using a fallacy that is called "survivorship bias." Now, I don't expect people to know offhand what that means. However, given how much Veghead brags that he has superior aptitude in stats...and math in general, there was no need for me to define the fallacy. He should already know since it's a common term in stats. So, what did he think it meant? He took it literally and thought it meant dead presidents. LOL! The bolded quote at the end proves how intellectually superior he is.   

I am left with no choice, but to publicly embarrass him. 

@Blackvegetable  I will never let you live this gem down. 
Survivorship bias = dead presidents. 

Yer thread triggered Bv.     
 

roadkill » 29 Nov 2022, 6:23 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2022, 6:23 pm

Yer thread triggered Bv.   

:rofl:  keep  :die:   :die:  reading  :rofl:   :rofl:   :rofl:  .....


**** idiot.

@roadkill  ,


Go fetch @Vegas  

Blackvegetable » 29 Nov 2022, 6:25 pm » wrote: ↑

29 Nov 2022, 6:25 pm

@roadkill  ,

Go fetch @Vegas

Bv bit.       



    

PIN THIS THREAD!
PIN THIS THREAD!
PIN THIS THREAD!
PIN THIS THREAD!
PIN THIS THREAD!
PIN THIS THREAD!

​​​​​​​

However, given how much Veghead brags that he has superior aptitude in stats...and math in general, there was no need for me to define the fallacy. He should already know since it's a common term in stats. So, what did he think it meant? He took it literally and thought it meant dead presidents. LOL! The bolded quote at the end proves how intellectually superior he is.    

Literally SURVIVORship bias..


How hard could it be?


For a moron..