1+1 can equal 3, but only if you forget about birth control.
3 Likes
Sorry you donât understand binary. There are 10 types of people in the world when discussing it.
3 Likes
1+1=3 for very large values of 1.
I donât expect you to understand that though since you donât even understand basic science 
If we assume that ganking is bad for new player retention, does that imply that new players who get ganked are less likely to subscribe than players who are not ganked or lose a ship by other means?
1 Like
kek.
Touche.
I have no idea how a value of 1 can be greater or lesser than a value of 1.
Either you are an idiot, or an idiot savant that understands math better than anyone else, ever.
I seriously doubt the latter.
If we assume that premise, implication and other conditionals in your query as true, the answer is yes.
PS: I asked for a SIMPLE question, as you claimed your query was.
The above was anything but simple, by any measure of syntax.
You didnt need to try and jam everything in there at once to try and twist it, and my answer.
I would have answered any subsequent âsimpleâ questions as well.
PPS: Your question above is exactly the kind of convoluted syntax that wrecks the validity of scientific studies/discourse. No scientist with any sense, ever, would ask a question as convoluted as yours above on a questionnaire for data collation, nor of another scientist.
I feel that miners should be banned from highsec for mining too many rocks.
Think of all those orphaned rock children because you mined out their parents to empty husks just to fill your wallets!
3 Likes
Hate to break it to you, but rocks dont produce offspring.
In EVE, they magically re-appear.
1 Like
Hate to break it to you, but that went way over your head
And itâs gone
Rip
3 Likes
Because there is a scientific notation where ony the significant digits are written rounded. This means that 1 is actually 1 +/- 0.5 and the error gets added with +/-0.5 + +/-0.5 = +/-1. So for very large values of 1 that means 1.49999 + 1.49999 = 3.
So what did we learn? If you think a question is stupid or has no answer it may very well have an answer and it was actually not tje question which was stupid.
So if we conduct a study and find that people who are ganked are actually more likely to subscribe, that means the premis is falsified. The notion that ganking new players harms new player retention is therefor wrong.
Was that too complicated?
1 Like
Did it?
Iâm pretty sure I caught it and broke its neck.
If they are rounded, then the remainder is lost, and accuracy is lost.
Yes, cos its not 1, as you claimed earlier, its 1.499 repeating and rounded up to 3.
I learned you are stupid and dont understand that 1 is not the same as 1.499 repeating, and that rounding reduces validity/accuracy,
Again, the language you use is all wrong and unscientific, and shows you dont know what scientific method entails.
Studies are not conducted on basis of any premise, except if its based on another study, where the previous study constituted a premise,
Your attempt to substitute âpremiseâ for âhypothesisâ, again, is false.
What do you define as ânew playerâ?
How do you identify/address specifically a cohort to match that definition?
How do you test that it was suicide ganking that caused attrition?
It wasnât complicated, just utter unscientific crap.
What is complicated, is the scientific method, which you clearly donât understand or know.
lol, why do I even try. It really is all way over your head it seems. How someone can be this confused over simple things is just surprising.
2 Likes
Dunning Kruger explains it.
You are unaware of how ignorant you are.
Its my turn to ask you a simple question:
Do you think 1 and 1.4999 repeating, is the same thing or has the same value?
2 Likes
I doubt you would understand an answer if you had trouble the first time. So I will not waste my time any longer. Lol.
1 Like
Welcome to the club boi⌠1+1?
I probably wouldnât understand your answer, cos it would be nonsense.
Look, Ima, seriously.
Iâm sure you are very good at suicide ganking, but when it comes to scientific method and studies, you are way out of your depth. Ive been taught the method, how to analyze studies, not just in the hard sciences but also in soft.
I donât blame you for not knowing what that entails.
Science is very hard and very demanding, for good reason.
I understand/know that better than you, thanks to my education, but Iâm not an expert either.
Surely you and I can both agree, that it would not be a bad thing if CCP ran another, better, and wider study on player attrition (suicide ganking being just one factor in that)?
More data is good, yes?
âYou consent to PvP the moment you loginâ <- Fixed that for you.
Market is also a form of pvp. Chat is one as well - surely you have not forgotten about all kinds of scam?
2 Likes