Liberal Forum

Vegas » 24 Oct 2024, 9:55 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 9:55 am

Yeah, we know. ^^^

Hey, I recall some of the details from your gaffe about survivorship bias from that survey. Not all of the details, but enough to fill in the blanks. 

You don't have the vaguest idea what Survivorship bias is.

Or even "net".

You're a moron.

Blackvegetable » 24 Oct 2024, 10:21 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 10:21 am

You don't have the vaguest idea what Survivorship bias is.

Or even "net".

You're a moron.

So this is the new lie that you are going to vomit out. No surprise.     

If I am a moron, then you lost 4 times to one. 

Not only do you not know what survivorship bias is, nor level 3, you can't even stop falling for the same ****. ^^^

Blackvegetable » 24 Oct 2024, 10:20 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 10:20 am

Then demonstrate it.

"Net" of what?

Level 3. 
 

Vegas » 24 Oct 2024, 10:23 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 10:23 am

So this is the new lie that you are going to vomit out. No surprise.     

If I am a moron, then you lost 4 times to one. 

Not only do you not know what survivorship bias is, nor level 3, you can't even stop falling for the same ****. ^^^

Your first example isn't a "sampling error". Or even an error at all....except for OP ****.

Net job creation = Gross jobs added - Jobs lost

Making your statement to the contrary a lie.

 

Vegas » 24 Oct 2024, 10:23 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 10:23 am

Level 3.

Level 27 calls "****"

Blackvegetable » 24 Oct 2024, 10:28 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 10:28 am

Your first example isn't a "sampling error". Or even an error at all....except for OP ****.

 

It showed what data didn't "survive." But of course, you didn't read it. So **** you. 

Net job creation = Gross jobs added - Jobs lost

Until a survivorship bias happens...hence, the data the job losses that didn't "survive" the count. But of course, you didn't read it. So **** you. 

Making your statement to the contrary a lie.

See above . Or read the **** example. **** you for not reading it. 
 

Blackvegetable » 24 Oct 2024, 10:29 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 10:29 am

Level 27 calls "****"

You are level 0. As always, you got nothing. 

Vegas » 24 Oct 2024, 10:32 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 10:32 am

You are level 0. As always, you got nothing.

I just posted the Level 1 which eludes you.


Because you're a moron.
 

Blackvegetable » 24 Oct 2024, 10:35 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 10:35 am

I just posted the Level 1 which eludes you.

Because you're a moron.

And if you read the example, you would see why the survivorship bias contradicted it. 

But you are too **** stupid to read anything. 

If I am a moron, then you lost 4 times to one. God you are dumb. 

Vegas » 24 Oct 2024, 10:38 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 10:38 am

And if you read the example, you would see why the survivorship bias contradicted it. 

But you are too **** stupid to read anything. 

If I am a moron, then you lost 4 times to one. God you are dumb.

There is neither "contradiction" nor "survivorship bias" involved.

Blackvegetable » 24 Oct 2024, 10:56 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 10:56 am

There is neither "contradiction" nor "survivorship bias" involved.

Of cpourse you are going to say that. You have been defeated. 

You can't even back that up because that would require you quoting text from the example...more than just the first 5 words. 





I'll save you time: If I am a moron/idiot, then you lost 4 times to one. 

Vegas » 24 Oct 2024, 11:54 am » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 11:54 am

Of cpourse you are going to say that. You have been defeated. 

You can't even back that up because that would require you quoting text from the example...more than just the first 5 words. 

I'll save you time: If I am a moron/idiot, then you lost 4 times to one.

I demonstrated it...


 

Blackvegetable » 24 Oct 2024, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 12:07 pm

I demonstrated it...

Nope. Impossible. Your demonstration was eviscerated. 

Look...nobody expects you to admit a damn thing. Narcissists don't do that. 

The record shows that you are full of **** and that is good enough for me. 

1. Safe space. 

Vegas » 24 Oct 2024, 1:00 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 1:00 pm

Nope. Impossible. Your demonstration was eviscerated. 

Look...nobody expects you to admit a damn thing. Narcissists don't do that. 

The record shows that you are full of **** and that is good enough for me. 

1. Safe space.

Not unless you can post a different formula for net job gains.

 

Blackvegetable » 24 Oct 2024, 1:06 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 1:06 pm

Not unless you can post a different formula for net job gains.

Already explained...in the example that you are too stupid to read. 

Vegas » 24 Oct 2024, 1:57 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 1:57 pm

Already explained...in the example that you are too stupid to read.

No, it isn't.

Blackvegetable » 24 Oct 2024, 2:03 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 2:03 pm

No, it isn't.

Prove you read the whole thing. 

1. You will continue lying that you read it all, then say "it was all ****."
100% accuracy. 

Vegas » 24 Oct 2024, 2:04 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 2:04 pm

Prove you read the whole thing. 

1. You will continue lying that you read it all, then say "it was all ****."
100% accuracy.

BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE TWO **** NON EXAMPLES, MORON.

Blackvegetable » 24 Oct 2024, 2:16 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 2:16 pm

BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE TWO **** NON EXAMPLES, MORON.

How do you know if you didn't read them? 

If I am a moron, then you lost 4 times to one. 


1. You will now come up with the dumbest answer...probably something like "because I can just tell from the first 5 words...." 

Puke. 

Vegas » 24 Oct 2024, 2:20 pm » wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2024, 2:20 pm

How do you know if you didn't read them? 

If I am a moron, then you lost 4 times to one. 

1. You will now come up with the dumbest answer...probably something like "because I can just tell from the first 5 words...." 

Puke.

That's WHY I know, Idiot.