R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 10:03 am » wrote: ↑ I don't see your assertions supported by the results of your random googling.
But then, I read it.
He STILL doesn't understand the concept.
R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 10:07 am » wrote: ↑ This is how **** stupid you are...
Who says my definition of Survivorship bias is wrong?
Post how many hours you've spent studying statistics, then ask @Vegas for his definition.*rippy38 » 18 Apr 2024, 10:06 am » wrote: ↑ He STILL doesn't understand the concept.
Too ****' funny!
I did, for one.R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 10:07 am » wrote: ↑ This is how **** stupid you are...
Who says my definition of Survivorship bias is wrong?
Do you want to quote yourself again?
No...that confirms that I am correct.Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 10:08 am » wrote: ↑ Your own **** copy/paste that you did from Google you stupid mother ****.
Snave will ask for citations... and even when you provide him with multiple citations, he will say they aren't good enough and that you need to post better citations.
No...it confirms that you are a moron. Try again.
Well...we have this:What else have you got?
R.Suave » Yesterday, 6:15 pm » wrote: ↑
Yesterday, 6:15 pm
Sure...
But I will determine if I've satisfied the standard of evidence..
Shouldn't be an issue if you can be the judge of what defines "Survivorship bias".
My judgement is final.
Let's begin.
Just post it.
Post your definition, and we'll see which of us is the moron.Vegas » 18 Apr 2024, 10:11 am » wrote: ↑ No...it confirms that you are a moron. Try again.
Well...we have this:
R.Suave » 18 Apr 2024, 10:13 am » wrote: ↑ Post your definition, and we'll see which of us is the moron.
Only to those who break the rule.When you don't, we'll also know who's the coward.
Sure...