EVE General Discussion

Shh Goonie (Grr™) Trolling is social skills in your alliance

But the smiles are the entire point of people like myself visiting the forums, while performing otherwise boring tasks in game

Try not to bamboozle people, throw out all the big fancy words and replace them with plain simple ones. A explanation that people can understand without having to refer to a dictionary will go a long way.

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.

If however I said I work with the computers that control modern cars, their security systems, and GPS navigation /tracking systems, people know what I'm talking about.

As a CFC pet I am required by my honour and binding word to my liege to say: deal with it.

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.

Firstly, the post you refer to as "Look at me mummy blabla" was in answer to a question from another poster, I know it's hard but please do try and keep up.

Secondly, when you actually understand the context of my signature please get back to me, until then kindly crawl back under your bridge, I believe there's some goats on their way.


I'll take it as such, being accused of being a Tippia alt is even better than being accused of being a James 315 alt, even if it is coming from an obvious shiptoasting alt.

Yes you did. Go back and read it in sequence.

First you said I couldn't multiply the two probabilities together because there was a dependency.
Then you showed a formula where you multiply two probabilities together.
Then you claimed you could do this because they were not dependent.
Then you noted that the probabilities were the ones you initially couldn't multiply together because there was a dependency..

Presumably you mean the past event where you contradicted yourself in the manner illustrated above? 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)?

Funnily enough, I know what three of those acronyms mean.

Attempting to apply logic formulas to EVE is about on par with dancing about architecture.

...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.

Nor did I ever claim that you did, but considering how often you asked me to admit to thing, maybe I should...

Sure you do, since you're the one making the claim and since every time you've refused to do it, the suspicion has grown that you have no idea what on earth you're talking about. Dodging questions proves nothing except that you're unwilling to answer, which raises all kinds of questions about your motivation for not answering something you claim to know and understand well. It tends to imply inability rather than mere unwillingness, for instance.