Seriously, at times it seems you have trouble understanding simple sentences and you try to tell me you know more about science than I do 
1 Like
Thatās a very weak answer that also avoided what I asked.
I answered your questions, but you avoid mine.
PS: Yes, Iām certain I understand the scientific method better than you do.
You dont even know the difference between 1 and 1.499.
It would be just a waste of time really since we all know what the result would be: More denial from the same people who disregard the last study.
Or what are you expecting? That everything will turn on its head after 15 daysā¦ There are other statistics conducted by players based on killboards and they donāt show any difference at least from that perspective be that for 15 or 90 days. So donāt get your hopes up.
This is all just a waste of timeā¦
2 Likes
Agreed mr wreck
We should focus on important questions, such as 1+1?
1 Like
I expect more, better, wider data on player attrition.
What are you expecting?
How does one conduct statistics?
Man, I told you above, you donāt understand/know the scientific method.
You donāt understand even the basic terminology, let alone why it is defined as such.
Here, just for you: Uncertainty - Wikipedia
For example, applying 10 ā1ā2 meters in a scientific or engineering application, it could be written 10.5 m or 10.50 m, by convention meaning accurate to within one tenth of a meter, or one hundredth. The precision is symmetric around the last digit. In this case itās half a tenth up and half a tenth down, so 10.5 means between 10.45 and 10.55. Thus it is understood that 10.5 means 10.5Ā±0.05, and 10.50 means 10.50Ā±0.005, also written 10.50(5) and 10.500(5) respectively.
Which means that 1+1=3 for large valued of 1
simple
I know people react strongly if they are shown they donāt understand something they assumed to be clear. Thatās ok. You will survive it.
1 Like
Oh man, this is hilarious.
You are so uneducated in these matters its funny as hell.
You really donāt get how badly you have misunderstood what you quoted, do you.
Value of 1 is 1
Please do not continue
1 Like
I expect you to disregard the study because you donāt like the outcome. You know like you do with the current one.
1 Like
One catalyst plus one catalyst is three catalyst.
Again, you still donāt understand how/why the initial "study, was flawed, especially towards the conclusions YOU drew from it, and how far you tried to extend them.
In your mind, 1+1=3.
Thatās says it all of your capacity to understand what a study is, what its results are, and why a wider, better study would be a good thing,
What are you afraid of?
Would it not be a good thing if CCP ran a wider, better study on player attrition?
As I mentioned there is a scientific notation where 1 means 1 +/- 0.5 so the value of 1 is between 0.5 and 1.5.
I know, it is really really hard 
1 Like
forget it, we already had that.
there is no reason to do this again. You are hopeless
1 Like
Oh godā¦
Pleaseā¦ Stop.
You are confusing rounding and margins of error, with āscientific notationā.
1 Like
Yes, face palm.
You have no idea what you are talking about,
No. Value of 1 is always 1.
This triggers you really hard yes?
1 Like
I am trying to help you.
No, just shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
I told you above, you are way out of your depth on this.
Inb4 āI was only pretending to be retardedā
Own your crap.
Ive been wrong many times, but I own it.