Anonymous ID: d64bbc Dec. 18, 2018, 11:07 a.m. No.4363243   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>4363118

>Do humans control this board?

 

Yes

 

>Is this "baker" human?

 

Yes

 

>Do the "bakers" sometime glitch?

 

To err is human. Does "8ch" sometimes glitch?

 

>Are the "puke style" GOOGLE DEEP DREAM AI memes a dead giveaway for bots?

 

No. Why would someone set up a bot to make breads but then also give it away by posting "deep dream" images too? Someone would literally have to program that "give away", so this is stupid.

 

>But do passive humans allow AI bakers to maintain control anyway?

 

You didn't establish that AI is in control, so this is a false question,

 

>Why?

 

Fuck you faggot.

 

>Did Q say "patriots, be unquestioning sheep!"

 

Like you would have a clue what Q says

 

>Or "patriots fight!"

 

Q says to get in the [box]

 

>??

 

!!

Anonymous ID: d64bbc Dec. 18, 2018, 11:45 a.m. No.4363820   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3842

>>4363669

 

OOOOO DATA! I do data for a living. Excellent!

 

>If we go back to the FJC report, we can find that it also listed the number of sealed magistrate judge cases (15,177 pg. 21), and sealed miscellaneous cases (8,121 pg. 23) found in 2006. Adding these to 1077, the total number of sealed criminal cases that the report listed was 24,375.

 

I'll start by saying that this begun soundly enough. Indictment might not be the best term for it, perhaps Sealed Cases or Sealed Proceedings might be better. It's also a good point that these aren't filtering, and the "normal" of 1077 is an unfair comparison. Sure. I can grant that.

 

But even still, 24k in 2006 vs 65k in 2018? That's a significant jump.

 

>As I explained earlier, the 2009 FJC report listed 24,375 sealed criminal cases, with 284 sealed indictments… that gives us a percentage of 1.2%. If we apply 1.2% to the current 51,181 total, we get 614.

 

>This means that using data supplied by the Qanon research team, we can estimate that out of the current 51,181 sealed proceedings, there would only be 614 sealed indictments.

 

>614 is a HUGE difference from the 51,181 that they claim exist.

 

Yeah, but you can't just do that and call it case closed. Again, perhaps "indictment" is a misnomer, I can eat that, but the amount of proceedings is YUGE compared to 2006.

 

Since you love numbers and how you can make anything look good or bad with numbers, how about this comparison?

 

In 2006 we had 284 sealed indictments, if we grant this faggots assumption of 614 sealed indictments, that's 614 / 284 = 2.16 times the amount of normal indictments. I would need more data, but I would wage that's at LEAST a standard deviation away from average.

 

Thanks for contributing to a Q Proof, faggot shill.