Not on my EVE Online General Discussion.

Only trolling skillZ.

Firstly Tippia is male.

Secondly we've yet to see evidence that you're familiar with the technical subjects that you post about, most of what you've posted in the past can be pulled from wikipedia or google with little or no effort.

Tippia at least provides evidence to back up his claims.

I have a specialist technical background myself, and I can talk to people about it without sounding being boastful or insulting. They might not actually understand what I'm talking about in detail, but I can get the basics across. It's this thing called social skills, you need to work on them.

However, I might point out that while getting people to smile and nod is a very useful skill, it doesn't seem appropriate here.

I'm all ears if you have some pointers; it's not something I'm good at.

However, I might point out that while getting people to smile and nod is a very useful skill, it doesn't seem appropriate here.

Just confirming that this is a 20 page thread about how insignificant and unworthy of attention Goons are.

confirmation from someone with the attention span of a 6-year old isnt of much value .... the thread consist to 30% of the usual braindead oneliner of zergswarm goonies like you and 60% are ************ of some forum-heros about definitions no one cares about with an iq above room temparature .... but hey, thats foreign territory to you as you have just proved with your "confirmation" and your "friends" following suit almost immediately babbling about "tears" that are nowhere to be seen.

When did they start measuring IQ in degrees Celcius?

There is the risk that some or all of the shots could miss.

When Spectatoress started posting, although given the content of its post, I'd say room temperature is sitting at about absolute zero (measured in -¦C)

Funny post of Mr. "automotive telematics and control systems" aka "Look at me mummy blabla". Wouldnt be surprised if alt of Tippia. Please continue. But beware of your signature.

i think that's a compliment, jonah

Funny post of Mr. "automotive telematics and control systems" aka "Look at me mummy blabla". Wouldnt be surprised if alt of Tippia. Please continue. But beware of your signature.

But I didn't contradict myself?

So far she's been wrong in every objective fight she's committed to; including but not limited to:

past forum events, the formal definition of risk, and compound probability of dependent events

Tell you what

For example, my specialty is automotive telematics and control systems, most people will blink at telematics and switch off at control systems, especially if I start spouting acronyms and terms such as CANBUS, MOST, LIN or FlexRay.

Then you noted that the probabilities were the ones you initially couldn't multiply together because there was a dependency..

The formal definition of risk I've used has been correct all along (it's probability times cost, by the way, where probability can be anywhere from 0 to 1, and cost can be both positive and negative),

and the compound probability of dependent events was also correct all along but you managed to confuse yourself over whether they were dependent or not.

So if you want to prove me "wrong in every objective fight" you've already lost because you chose to pick the qualifier "every" and then gave examples where I was correct... unless you're somehow implying that "including" does not refer to the objective fights you're talking about.

No, I'll tell you what. How about you prove that you have any clue what you're talking about by backing up your claim and showing how you would write the two in order to control for the dependence of p(stolen)?

Wah

Wah

I'm sorry that the notation confused you, but P(B|A) is not the same thing as P(B).

Your preferred source, ISO 31000, clearly disagrees - as noted by several others.

Fortunately, I never said anything about making you admit it.

I don't have to

...and I'm sorry that you ever thought it was a P(B). Was it the implicit nature of something that can't happen without the other thing happening first that tripped you up?

Not really, no. They use the same multiplication of probability and cost (which they rename to "outcome" as to not use a loaded term). They do not arbitrarily remove possible valid values for probabilities.

Dodging questions proves nothing except that you're unwilling to answer

You separated the variables, indicating that you were not making such an assumption.

They qualify that the event must be uncertain

Yes.

I separated the variables for the same reason you write it as P(A)P(B|A), and you even got the mentioned that assumption yourself, but then failed to actually include it in your thinking.

[citation needed]

Yes.

I'm not much of a griefer, but I have to admit it's fun watching you backpeddle after spending so many posts trying and failing to set up a gotcha.

Citation already given.

Yes.

Oh look, a thread that's 23 pages. Guess I check out the last page and see what's going on. Oh look, it's Tippia engaging in yet another pointless, off topic argument. Maybe if she makes the argument convoluted enough, the other guy will run out of patience and she can declare victory. We all know how she loves to declare victory.

edit: fixed mah italics

If suicide ganking is riskless that would mean it is impossible to fail.

...if by back-pedaling you mean driving the point forward until you finally manage to spit out a proper answer

No. You've provided a quote that defines risk; not one that defines uncertainty or puts any obligation on it being P<1, and in fact no citation whatsoever of the numerical methods involved. So [citation still needed]

Yes.

If you're going to QQ about people changing your quotes, start by not doing it yourself.