User Controls
What's your thank: post ratio?
-
2016-03-14 at 9:48 AM UTCPost
-
2016-03-14 at 9:48 AM UTCby
-
2016-03-14 at 9:48 AM UTCpost.
-
2016-03-14 at 10:18 AM UTCYou're freaking out. I think I blew your mind.
-
2016-03-14 at 10:20 AM UTC
Sorry m8. U got RIPPED fair and square. -
2016-03-14 at 10:37 AM UTC[greentext]>Any idiot can see that you didnt take into account the fact that you have been posting since September and I have started posting last month.[/greentext]
That doesn't change post frequency. Post frequency indicates the total amount of nolifing trying to attain 1:1 on this forum. You've tried hard, but what is your inherent ability?
[greentext]>m is equal to (n-1) + 1[/greentext]
K K K
K E K
K K K
[greentext]>Let us say in the time we both have been on the site shall determine our poster value.[/greentext]
It doesn't work that way. Post frequency indicates the amount of time training in a particular field, not the beginning date of posting.
[greentext]>The important thing is that I have a poster value of 5.9 which is in fact less than 6.7 which makes me the superior poster even if we are using your *magical* solution.[/greentext]
In that case you aren't applying the formula that places me at 6.7 to yourself, where it places you at 11.3
[greentext]>In the same amount of time you have gathered 61 likes over more than 500 posts.[/greentext]
But again,this is not relevant, refer to tenet 2. The amount of nolifing and effort spent on totse derivatives is an essential modifier of ability. There is fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence. Crystallized intelligence is something that can be learned, and acquired through nolifing a high posts per day ratio. Fluid intelligence is innate, and reflects the δ of a poster in the purest form. If I nolifed as hard as you did, my returns would be far greater. I have higher δ.
δ δ δ
δ[FONT=arial] Σ [/FONT]δ
δ δ δ
-
2016-03-14 at 10:56 AM UTC
[greentext]>Any idiot can see that you didnt take into account the fact that you have been posting since September and I have started posting last month.[/greentext]
That doesn't change post frequency. Post frequency indicates the total amount of nolifing trying to attain 1:1 on this forum. You've tried hard, but what is your inherent ability?
My inherent ability is to decimate all other posters in terms of poster value. It is obvious that the universe is pushing me towards -1:1 post value which would, as stated earlier, basically make you my slave.[greentext]>m is equal to (n-1) + 1[/greentext]
K K K
K E K
K K K
[greentext]>not getting the joke that m = n[/greentext]
Your 9 is showing.[greentext]>Let us say in the time we both have been on the site shall determine our poster value.[/greentext]
It doesn't work that way. Post frequency indicates the amount of time training in a particular field, not the beginning date of posting.
This is silly and whimsical. I love childish thinking. Unfortunately you have spent exactly zero amount of time training in any particular feild. Posting frequency is obviously the frequency of which a user posts generally denoted in posts per day. To think that it has anything to do with "training" in particular "feilds" is a low value thought and shows that you do not have what it takes to be considered high value. You seem to fail to comprehend the objective fact that in the time I have been on this site I have gotten more thanks than you(me: 117 you: 61) and made less posts than you (Me: 400 you: ~800) in the same amount of time. If you know anything this obviously means that I have a higher poster value than you without even doing the math.[greentext]>The important thing is that I have a poster value of 5.9 which is in fact less than 6.7 which makes me the superior poster even if we are using your *magical* solution.[/greentext]
In that case you aren't applying the formula that places me at 6.7 to yourself, where it places you at 11.3
No sir I will not apply your formula that place you at 6.7 as it dishonestly depreciates your number. If you read my above post your true number compared to mine is 8.21 with my number being in the 3.somethings. My mathematics and method are clearly of higher value than yours as I bring into account the number of posts and thanks in the same timeframe rather than doing a low value song and dance that incorporates "post frequency". Its sad to see you resort to such low value methods in an attempt to interlope into the high value class to which I belong.[greentext]>In the same amount of time you have gathered 61 likes over more than 500 posts.[/greentext]
But again,this is not relevant, refer to tenet 2. The amount of nolifing and effort spent on totse derivatives is an essential modifier of ability. There is fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence. Crystallized intelligence is something that can be learned, and acquired through nolifing a high posts per day ratio. Fluid intelligence is innate, and reflects the δ of a poster in the purest form. If I nolifed as hard as you did, my returns would be far greater.
Literally pseudoscience. Kill yourself for believing in crystal intelligence. That shit is as quack as crystal energy and psycic readings. If you want to use bad math, bad numbers and bad karma then thats fine. But do not attempt to pass your drivel off as anything other than utter, unsubstantiated, low value nonsense. -
2016-03-14 at 10:57 AM UTCHAHAHA what a low value edit. Such a fucking 9 man.
-
2016-03-14 at 11:09 AM UTC[greentext]>Your 9 is showing.[/greentext]
[greentext]>>Made a magic square out of keks in response to a mathematically incorrect statement[/greentext]
[greentext]>>Objective ratio of 0:0 [/greentext]
[greentext]>You seem to fail to comprehend the objective fact that in the time I have been on this site I have gotten more thanks than you(me: 117 you: 61) and made less posts than you (Me: 400 you: ~800) in the same amount of time. [/greentext]
You dismiss post frequency as a psychological indicator of effort without any substantiation, used the same bias fallacy you use earlier when you assumed a 5.9. Effort misrepresents true ability. I don't try as hard as you, so I have more δ, while also being more of a brδ.
[greentext]>My mathematics and method are clearly of higher value than yours as I bring into account the number of posts and thanks in the same timeframe rather than doing a low value song and dance that incorporates "post frequency". [/greentext]
Timeframe is just a way of picking a particular slice of posts that best manipulates the data in your favor. Posts per day is an average over time, accounting for all variables in a person's history.
[greentext]>Literally pseudoscience. Kill yourself for believing in crystal intelligence.[/greentext]
Neurons are fluid, information from the external world i.e. crystals, is interpreted by fluidity. Kill yourself for not knowing this. -
2016-03-14 at 11:13 AM UTC[greentext]>an average over time, accounting for all variables[/greentext]
Its shit like this that makes you low value. -
2016-03-14 at 11:21 AM UTCBecause all variables are averaged into their steady state for a particular poster. In timeframes a particular variable may be occurring at levels standard deviations above or below the steady state, giving an inaccurate representation Timeless δ, rather representing Situational δ. Situational δ is mostly just fight-or-flight response, because posters can have high Sδ but low Tδ
-
2016-03-14 at 11:29 AM UTCThe above is gibberish. You are just making up terms. The fact remains that in the same timeframe (2/6/16-3/14/16) I had lower forum codependency while having a higher thank count. This makes me objectively high value and you objectively low value. You are a 9 dude. Deal with it. I am a 3. Just face the fact that I am better than you by your own standard and move on.
Or is admitting your objective defeat too painful? If so just keep weaving words together. You know what they say about a money a typewriter and an infinite amount of time? Im sure its relate-able to your situation. -
2016-03-14 at 11:36 AM UTC
The fact remains that in the same timeframe (2/6/16-3/14/16) I had lower forum codependency while having a higher thank count.
Perhaps, but assuming you stay at a steady state of forum codependency, my forum codependency was low enough at certain points for me to achieve a coveted 6.73. Posts per day is an equally valuable measurement to thanks and posts, because those who cannot operate dual lives are hopeless to ever spread the Totsean lore. If your posts per day at this current point is misrepresentation of your average amount of posts per day in Timeless δ, rather than this specific timeframe, which is Situational δ, you would be worthy of a 3. But this has not been demonstrated yet, for now, the raw data places you at an 11+. -
2016-03-14 at 11:38 AM UTCTimeframes are an arbitrary manipulation, whereas posts per day is an objective number with vast implications regarding the human psychology in the derivation of δ.
-
2016-03-14 at 11:42 AM UTCAgain more wishful thinking. The math is right in front of you. According to the Law of Thanks I am a 3 and you are a 9. Twist those words low val. Eventually you might get something.
[greentext]>Timeless δ[/greentext]
[greentext]>Situational δ[/greentext]
Literally not even defined. These are made up terms that bear no regard to the topic at hand and at best are just philosophical mental masturbation since they have not and can not be demonstrated mathematically.
Nice edit on your OP by the way. You made the fucking formula but had to edit it an hour later? What a low value move by a love value poster. -
2016-03-14 at 11:44 AM UTCThe best fucking part about this is that I coined δ. Only a high value poster could come up with and comprehend that shit. A low val like you just takes it and attempts to morph it into something it isnt.
LOW
O
W
VALUE
A
L
U
E
-
2016-03-14 at 11:50 AM UTC[greentext]>they have not and can not be demonstrated mathematically.[/greentext]
Timeless δ = x^4
Situational δ = SUBSET x^4
Timeless δ = Average posts per day
Situational δ = Subset of average posts per day restricted to a certain timeframe
Timeless δ contains all possible Situational δ's and is therefore more objective.
[greentext]>love value poster.[/greentext]
[greentext]>love[/greentext]
Aww you freuded -
2016-03-14 at 11:52 AM UTC
The best fucking part about this is that I coined δ.
Yeah but I coined the entire thread -
2016-03-14 at 11:58 AM UTCx^4 means nothing in this context as well. How does cubing x mathematically represent or relate to "average posts per day"? Lowest value retort yet buddy. Good luck trying to explain this one.
Also δ isnt even a measure of posts but rather a measure of poster value as denoted by a formula I created. It goes something like so,
Formula: (15 x n) + m where n = number of pages - 1 and m = last page and the constant 15 is the number of thanks per page
(15 x n) + m = T
Then divide your post count by number of thanks
P / [(15 x n) + m] = P/T = δ where δ is the poster value -
2016-03-14 at 12:01 PM UTCSee I am objectively high value since Presidential Candidate Donald Trump supports my position and thinks your low energy low value bs is ridiculous.