Prove you are qualified, Mr. Narcissist. Or do your rules not apply to you?Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2025, 11:14 am » wrote: ↑ No...the point of this exercise is to determine whether you are qualified to determine what is "intelligent".
The evidence to the contrary is robust.
Here is the definition of Survivorship bias, in my own words.Vegas » 16 Oct 2025, 11:15 am » wrote: ↑ Prove you are qualified, Mr. Narcissist. Or do your rules not apply to you?
Christ Vegas.. Get therapy for your digital stutter. You are better than this repetitive bullshyt.Vegas » 16 Oct 2025, 10:04 am » wrote: ↑ Another level 0 response. Shocker. You can't even come up with different insults. At least try for God sakes.
Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?
A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors
Predictions:
Deal:
Once you answer the multiple choice question, I will gut your definition in a tribute thread. I will show it applies to all responses.Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2025, 11:20 am » wrote: ↑ Here is the definition of Survivorship bias, in my own words.
When a sample fails to reflect "mortality" in the population being examined.
Poat yours.
Your next move will be this prediction:Let me prove how predictable you narcissists are. Watch this:
2. Your next move will be to claim that you answered it by giving your definition, to which I replied that isn't the question...etc...etc...blah...blah...blah..
3. You will also say that you answered through your non-answers.
JohnnyYou » 16 Oct 2025, 11:23 am » wrote: ↑ Christ Vegas.. Get therapy for your digital stutter. You are better than this repetitive bullshyt.
Are businesses closing in Vegas yet?
I am willing to bet BV can beat you in an IQ test anyday.Vegas » 16 Oct 2025, 11:15 am » wrote: ↑ Prove you are qualified, Mr. Narcissist. Or do your rules not apply to you?
Go with Answer D BV. Just guess one and get this mutliple choice that is posted multitudes of times off this rag.Vegas » 16 Oct 2025, 11:25 am » wrote: ↑ Tell it to @Blackvegetable . It will stop once he answers it.
1. And Veghead, do I need to bother with the prediction of your next response?
JohnnyYou » 16 Oct 2025, 11:25 am » wrote: ↑ I am willing to bet BV can beat you in an IQ test anyday.
Well he said today would like to see the FBI burnbags. It was news to me they existed.Vegas » 16 Oct 2025, 11:28 am » wrote: ↑ Of course you will say that. You are on his side. Duh.
And I dare you to go into his archives and find one intelligent thought of his own. Since 2017. Just one. All I am asking for is one. He copies others because he has no thoughts of his own.
JohnnyYou » 16 Oct 2025, 11:32 am » wrote: ↑ Well he said today would like to see the FBI burnbags. It was news to me they existed.
I think it would be fun to look back on this and revel in some epic slack jaw goober....
I already HAVE answered it.Vegas » 16 Oct 2025, 11:24 am » wrote: ↑ Once you answer the multiple choice question, I will gut your definition in a tribute thread. I will show it applies to all responses.
You fulfilled one of the predictions, as always. You always do.
Your next move will be this prediction:
Show me where just one of these predictions didn't ring true in all of this gibberish: ^^^Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2025, 11:35 am » wrote: ↑ I already HAVE answered it.
As you have admitted.
Until we see a definition, in your words, you are unqualified to judge.
Let me prove how predictable you narcissists are. Watch this:
1. Phase 1: You will say that you answered it.
Phase 2: I will remind you of :"are these your words?" from yesterday and if "will" is future tense.
Phase 3: You will deny that I showed you, because of your meltdown with my link provided...and then you will say "I didn't ask for a link."
Repeat
2. Your next move will be to claim that you answered it by giving your definition, to which I replied that isn't the question...etc...etc...blah...blah...blah..
Tell me why any of that **** is relevant.Vegas » 16 Oct 2025, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑ Show me where just one of these predictions didn't ring true in all of this gibberish: ^^^
Your **** is irrelevant. That's why I predicted it successfully. You are the master at posting irrelevant ****. It's how I get 100% accuracy on you.
None of that dribble is relevant.Vegas » 16 Oct 2025, 11:52 am » wrote: ↑ Your **** is irrelevant. That's why I predicted it successfully. You are the master at posting irrelevant ****. It's how I get 100% accuracy on you.
Crack ho',Vegas » 16 Oct 2025, 11:54 am » wrote: ↑ It's all of my predictions of what you say. Thus, you just admitted that your posts are irrelevant. Well done dumb ***.
Post it.Blackvegetable » 16 Oct 2025, 11:56 am » wrote: ↑
As the evidence clearly shows, you aren't qualified.
Can you demonstrate to the contrary?
I already did.Vegas » 16 Oct 2025, 12:06 pm » wrote: ↑ Post it.
Can you demonstrate that you are qualified?
Or do your rules not apply to you?
No you didn't. Liar.