You're lying.Vegas » 22 May 2025, 10:23 am » wrote: ↑ Dodge 162
Now here is the thing. Your definition was "it's a sampling error."
Dodge 163 in real time
Blackvegetable » 22 May 2025, 10:21 am » wrote: ↑ If all it took was gifs, you might have a point.
As it stands, you're short several limbs.
Okay.*Beekeeper » 22 May 2025, 10:18 am » wrote: ↑ Kicking BeeVee's *** isn't being peevish.
It's quite entertaining to watch his lying crumble before his very eyes. This can be better than Comedy Central at times, especially when @Blackvegetable keeps trying to prove **** he claims, only to see it blow up in his face!!
https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1 ... TCcUOQ.gif
**** no ^^^Blackvegetable » 21 May 2025, 6:06 am » wrote: ↑Please oh please, Vegas. Stop cornering me with that question. At least give me some breathing room.
Are you her pimp? If so, what's the price.
Vegas » 22 May 2025, 12:34 pm » wrote: ↑ **** no ^^^
Dodge 166 in real time
Now here is the thing. Your definition was "it's a sampling error."
****.Survivorship bias is a statistical concept, not just an episode in the Pacific. I described it in statistical terms, specifically "sample" and "population". Correctly. I will cite an example once I see you ask@Vegas for his definition, or his admission. Depending, of course, on your definition of "no cigar"...
R.Suave » 09 Apr 2024, 10:33 am » wrote: ↑
When a sample fails to reflect "mortality" in the population being examined.
Blackvegetable » 22 May 2025, 1:51 pm » wrote: ↑ Survivorship bias is a statistical concept, not just an episode in the Pacific. I described it in statistical terms, specifically "sample" and "population". Correctly. I will cite an example once I see you ask@Vegas for his definition, or his admission. Depending, of course, on your definition of "no cigar"...
****. Your definition is as follows...
Vague. Not good enough. Math is precise. Vague definitions are completely unacceptable. This is a partial definition — it lacks clarity about why this matters (i.e. the distortion it causes) and how it happens (i.e. filtering out failures or dropouts).When a sample fails to reflect "mortality" in the population being examined.
You better be dead when posting that.Vegas » 22 May 2025, 1:59 pm » wrote: ↑![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
And he flips it on me again.
Vague. Not good enough. Math is precise. Vague definitions are completely unacceptable. This is a partial definition — it lacks clarity about why this matters (i.e. the distortion it causes) and how it happens (i.e. filtering out failures or dropouts).
Try again. **** your partial ****.
So **** g'ddammned stupid....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. Image
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. Image
If she wanted me, I might be within reach given the 5-10 mill she got out of Grifty.
Well, you are clearly no pimp and could never make it as a pimp. So, unless you are actively managing whores, once again, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.Blackvegetable » 22 May 2025, 2:11 pm » wrote: ↑ If she wanted me, I might be within reach given the 5-10 mill she got out of Grifty.
But just barely.
You'll have to take up your ambitions with her directly.
If only pimps could recognize whores there wouldn't be any whores, or pimps.Skans » 22 May 2025, 2:22 pm » wrote: ↑ Well, you are clearly no pimp and could never make it as a pimp. So, unless you are actively managing whores, once again, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
HEY, ANYONE ELSE OUT THERE THINK THIS IS SOME OF THE STUPIDEST **** BV HAS EVER SAID???Blackvegetable » 22 May 2025, 2:24 pm » wrote: ↑ If only pimps could recognize whores there wouldn't be any whores, or pimps.
**** idiot.
Do you know what a "Georgia" is, Country?Skans » 22 May 2025, 2:26 pm » wrote: ↑ HEY, ANYONE ELSE OUT THERE THINK THIS IS SOME OF THE STUPIDEST **** BV HAS EVER SAID???
Your quote of mine does nothing to prove a contradiction. You do what you always do. Stalk. You found an old thread about it and then pretend it's a mic drop on your behalf. You literally proved nothing.Blackvegetable » 22 May 2025, 2:08 pm » wrote: ↑ You better be dead when posting that.
So **** g'ddammned stupid....
Kill yourself now.
When a sample fails to reflect "mortality" in the population being examined.
1. You will stalk again and post a quote/thread that does nothing to gain favor for your side...but you will pretend it does. **** moron.This is a partial definition — it's on the right track but lacks clarity about why this matters (i.e. the distortion it causes) and how it happens (i.e. filtering out failures or dropouts).
I don't speak Yankee or Ebonics. Sorry.