Liberal Forum

R.Suave » 17 Jan 2024, 4:01 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2024, 4:01 pm

Before we go any further, please post the core requirements for an MBA fron UC Berkeley.

Then post the school from which Grifty earned his MBA.

Wharton School of Business has the most rigorous curriculum of any school in the country, and is considered to be harder to get into AND harder to graduate from than any other university on earth. 

President Trump graduated at the top of his class, and was begged to stay and teach on any subject he chose, such was his mastery of the entire curriculum.
 

R.Suave » 17 Jan 2024, 4:19 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2024, 4:19 pm

Do you have an MBA?

I do....I know what the core requirements are to earn one.

They include statistics.
 

Yet you posted and showed respect for multiple graphs that violated the first laws of statistics. 

Getting through a class and mastering the materials are two different things, Mr. Gentleman's C.

R.Suave » 18 Jan 2024, 7:28 am » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2024, 7:28 am

Just run.

And remember this the next time you eyeball that question mark key.

Ooooohh... an ominous threat.

It's not like you ever answer questions anyway.

Did you ever find another source backing up your claim that that's Donald Trump in your famous picture?

You don't have to answer... I know you haven't.

 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2024, 11:34 am » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2024, 11:34 am

Dispositive of what? How many days are in "a month"? Where is your link to a calendar?    

Well....I was born under a different religion that has a different time frame. One month in your time = 0.001 seconds in my religion.

RedheadedStranger » 18 Jan 2024, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2024, 11:59 am

Ooooohh... an ominous threat.

It's not like you ever answer questions anyway.

Did you ever find another source backing up your claim that that's Donald Trump in your famous picture?

You don't have to answer... I know you haven't.

I don't need one.

Nor do I need to lie about what I've said.


 

R.Suave » 18 Jan 2024, 12:03 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2024, 12:03 pm

I don't need one.

Nor do I need to lie about what I've said.

Yet, you do anyway.

Here comes the pic...Mistake vs Lie...

**** your redundancy. Spam will resume.

Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2024, 11:57 am » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2024, 11:57 am

Yet you posted and showed respect for multiple graphs that violated the first laws of statistics. 

Getting through a class and mastering the materials are two different things, Mr. Gentleman's C.

I said

"Thin crust, extra cheese...."


Now SHUT THE **** UP.

Vegas » 18 Jan 2024, 12:05 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2024, 12:05 pm

Yet, you do anyway.

Here comes the pic...Mistake vs Lie...

**** your redundancy. Spam will resume.

Prove it.
 

R.Suave » 17 Jan 2024, 4:34 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2024, 4:34 pm

He is simply taking the conviction rates in the venues where Grifty will be appearing and arriving at a joint probability.

This exercise would produce an extremely questionable number if it did not account for WHY acquittals occurred. Just throwing it against a universal outcome is not statistics - it's ****-hell trailer park statistics.

Do you GENUINELY not understand that any goober can say, "Nine outta ten people in that venue get convicted - so Trump is 90% certain to get convicted"? Seriously - that is precisely the opposite of how statistics works. Statistics CONTROLS FOR VARIABLES, thus producing a useful number. Without those controls, the number could be generated by any garage mechanic. 

As I said - passing a class and mastering the materials are two different things. 

I took INTRO to statistics at a **** juco, and it is clear to me that I have better facility in the subject than you do. 

I was there to learn - not to pass. I selected the class because I WANTED it - not because it was required. I was not seeking a degree - just knowledge.

Your author has abused your credulity, if the exercise he undertook is as you describe. 

R.Suave » 17 Jan 2024, 4:34 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2024, 4:34 pm

That you are ignorant of what's required doesn't mean any child couldn't do the arithmetic, after a short explanation.

Precisely my point. 

Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2024, 12:05 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2024, 12:05 pm

This exercise would produce an extremely questionable number if it did not account for WHY acquittals occurred. Just throwing it against a universal outcome is not statistics - it's ****-hell trailer park statistics.

Do you GENUINELY not understand that any goober can say, "Nine outta ten people in that venue get convicted - so Trump is 90% certain to get convicted"? Seriously - that is precisely the opposite of how statistics works. Statistics CONTROLS FOR VARIABLES, thus producing a useful number. Without those controls, the number could be generated by any garage mechanic. 

As I said - passing a class and mastering the materials are two different things. 

I took INTRO to statistics at a **** juco, and it is clear to me that I have better facility in the subject than you do. 

I was there to learn - not to pass. I selected the class because I WANTED it - not because it was required. I was not seeking a degree - just knowledge.

Your author has abused your credulity, if the exercise he undertook is as you describe.

Clean out the grease trap, and shut the **** up.

R.Suave » 18 Jan 2024, 12:05 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2024, 12:05 pm

Prove it.

Disprove it. 

Here comes the pic again..."mistake vs lie" etc...

Spam will come...

Vegas » 18 Jan 2024, 12:11 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2024, 12:11 pm

Disprove it. 

Here comes the pic again..."mistake vs lie" etc...

Spam will come...

You mean

"Here comes the indisputable evidence, all I have is spam."
 

R.Suave » 18 Jan 2024, 12:14 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2024, 12:14 pm

You mean

"Here comes the indisputable evidence, all I have is spam."

Prove it was a lie and not a mistake. Your claim.

R.Suave » 17 Jan 2024, 4:39 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2024, 4:39 pm

Then, as I suggested some time ago, YOU explain the probability.

I would never undertake to explain the probability of a conviction, as I am not a statistician, and the job of controlling for all of the variables is well above my pay grade - even FARTHER above yours, I conclude, based on your not having even considered the questions. 

What controls did your author use for the fact that the jury will be confronting a defendant who was their president? How many times has that happened, and how does he control for it?

Does your author predict the political leanings of the jurors - or posit how those will be controlled for during jury selection?

What was the average income/access to top counsel of those who were acquitted, against those who were convicted? Was that a factor that demonstrated a need to be weighted?  

I can tell you this: You're not going to generate a useful probability by just looking at basic conviction rates. Any stock boy at a walmart can generate THAT number, with no degree in statistics applied or required. 

Out of curiosity, did your mathematorian treat guilty pleas as convictions - as prosecutors are wont? Or did he confine his "analysis" to only those brave souls who took their cases before a judge/jury?

 
 

Cannonpointer » 18 Jan 2024, 12:19 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2024, 12:19 pm

What controls did your author use for the fact that the jury will be confronting a defendant who was their president? How many times has that happened, and how does he control for it?

Does your author predict the political leanings of the jurors - or posit how those will be controlled for during jury selection?

What was the average income/access to top counsel of those who were acquitted, against those who were convicted? Was that a factor that demonstrated a need to be weighted?  in any statistical analysis?

I would never undertake to explain the probability of a conviction, as I am not a statistician, and the job of controlling for all of the variables is well above my pay grade - even FARTHER above yours, I conclude, based on your not having even considered the questions. 

I can tell you this: You're not going to generate a useful probability by just looking at basic conviction rates. Any stock boy at a walmart can generate THAT number, with no degree instatistics applied or required. 

Out of curiosity, did your mathematorian treat guilty pleas as convictions - as prosecutors are wont? Or did he confine his "analysis" to only those brave souls who took their cases before a judge/jury?

Go clean the bathrooms..

R.Suave » 18 Jan 2024, 12:20 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2024, 12:20 pm

Go clean the bathrooms..

  Meltdown ^^^

R.Suave » 17 Jan 2024, 5:25 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2024, 5:25 pm

This is so simple, you can do it intuitively....which is a rare situation in multi-variant probabilities

Like how everyone intuited Trump would never be president. 
 

R.Suave » 18 Jan 2024, 12:20 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2024, 12:20 pm

Go clean the bathrooms..

Your mom is in there with a john. 
 

R.Suave » 18 Jan 2024, 12:06 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2024, 12:06 pm

Clean out the grease trap, and shut the **** up.

Your mom is cleaning them out.

With a john.
 

R.Suave » 18 Jan 2024, 12:05 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2024, 12:05 pm

I said

"Thin crust, extra cheese...."

Now SHUT THE **** UP.

Your mom has extra cheese. With a john.