Bluff called.Vegas » 09 Apr 2024, 9:28 am » wrote: ↑ You first.![]()
![]()
And knowing the copy/paste functions doesn't count.
Nope. Try again.R.Suave » 09 Apr 2024, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑ When a sample fails to reflect "mortality" in the population being examined.
This is on you. You post the **** examples. **** your projection. Narcissistic pos. You retards are all the same, all cowards.Now you post an example.
No...that definition is accurate.Vegas » 09 Apr 2024, 9:36 am » wrote: ↑ Nope. Try again.
This is on you. You post the **** examples. **** your projection. Narcissistic pos. You retards are all the same, all cowards.
Nope. Google is your friend. Seriously, it amazes me that narcissists are so **** scared to be wrong that they don't even have the humbleness to search for an answer that is so easy to find.
Figures lie and liars figure. Statistical facts mislead everyone reciting them as long as they are repeated socially ancestrally, until no more ancestries living believing life isn't self evident evolving as occupying space now.
Always...you? nevah...R.Suave » 09 Apr 2024, 9:25 am » wrote: ↑ Do you see him explaining anything?
Do you wanna give it a shot?
Give up on the bluffing, Rog....you're clearly an idiot.
no bluffing...everyone here knows your tactics...no matter how many times you try to come off as a highly polished turd, you're still a worthless piece of ****...
run...
Rog,ROG62 » 10 Apr 2024, 5:12 am » wrote: ↑ no bluffing...everyone here knows your tactics...no matter how many times you try to come off as a highly polished turd, you're still a worthless piece of ****...
I posted a definition.
Intellectual definitions are formed by speculation of anything else is possible, not actual evolving as taken place so far. Specificity of evolving uniquely alive can only happen in series parallel evolving to the moment here on the universal scale of everything perpetually balancing into a new total sum arrived so far.R. Suave » 10 Apr 2024, 7:26 am » wrote: ↑ I posted a definition.
Neither you nor @Vegas have any idea..
R.Suave » 10 Apr 2024, 7:26 am » wrote: ↑ I posted a definition.
Neither you nor @Vegas have any idea..
nod....
Beta is a measure of how closely a stock follows the market. Anything greater then 1 means it moves outside the swings of the market as a whole. In other words, a 6.3 means that it is very volatile and moving way outside the bounds of the index or the stock market numbers you see every night on the news. Therefore, it is a very risky stock. Alpha on the other hand is what you are searching for, how much it outperforms the market as a whole.