>>4470734 (LB)
Fair enough.
You're mixing two different methodologies. Hex C is a number, not a letter, and hence its value is 12, not 4. They use letters but could have used any symbol at all. Since C is a number in this context, the latter is nonsensical. Even at that, you'd have to figure out how many possibilities add up to 17, then divide by the total number with CC at the end (which is 65536).
Unfortunately, the shills are the ones that are used to paint everyone else with the broad brush of conspiracy theorist and dismiss everything that's said. Reasonable people believe it when they're told "Qtards think XXXX" when in fact, it's the shills saying "XXXX," not everyone else (or even Q).
You'd have to figure that out the odds of Q summing to 17 and anon summing to 23 - find the total possibilities of each, each divided by 65536. Then multiply the odds of together. This assumes they're independent (really uncorrelated, there's a difference, but it's semantic for this purpose). If they're actually correlated (most pseudo-random number generators are), then the odds tend to increase.
Note, btw, that C as a letter or number sums to 3 so that won't make a difference.
This is true of any arbitrary combination, however. The significance of 17 and 23 in this context is artificially applied. One could simply search posts to find a match anywhere, and claim some correlation. It's a nonsensical application of probability theory, basically the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy.
It doesn't matter as I noted. C = 3 from a letter vs C = 12 as a number, both sum to 3. Also noted the odds of these 2 matching as they did is simply 1/256, which is the same as the odds for any arbitrary match between 2 digits of 2 hex numbers.
That's human nature, anon. Go check out ANY of the big accounts on twatter. They do the same thing. They are more concerned with being right, their truth, than the actual truth. Many of the obnoxious ones will block you for disagreeing. Some will just mute you, and the best ones will ask questions, but ignore your answers in the long run.
The group in here may have better skillz at finding some of these deep details, but we have the same psychology. Objectivity is a difficult goal to achieve.
They are, but in specific context. By applying them to UIDs, that context is lost. Look up the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy. This is a variant of the same. You can do this with any number, anywhere, and come up with some sort of connection between two events.
How is that relevant to what I was posting? I was verifying that the numbers add up whether C is a letter or a number, are you daft? You don't make sense, anon. I also note that you used the word "believe," that's faith, not logic. Maybe you should spend some time re-reading Q's posts and quit lecturing others to do the same. I've read them, and the phrases "use logic" and "logical thinking" appear often.
The shock wave that started once the first floor collapsed could actually go faster than freefall would otherwise allow. That's why we could see windows blowing out well ahead of falling debris.
Wow, you're an idiot. There's just me, on my laptop.
Some of you have let the conspiracy thing get to you. Everything is comped or Mossad, or whatever suits your fancy to avoid facing what Q is telling us: use logic.
Yeah, that's the context I'm referring to. Not UIDs. You're applying Q's statement to everything, digging for a connection. It's silly at best. I note that you didn't look up the fallacy I mentioned… maybe a tutorial on logic?
Oh wow, I didn't realize they were only adding the first 4 digits, not including the CC. Even worse.
The general analogy of the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy is to take a wall of some sort, then shoot at it a bunch. Walk up to the wall and draw a circle around the shot you want to call a bullseye and circle it.
It's a post-hoc (aka after the fact) correlation. You can generally search through series of numbers and find just about any connection you want, even ones that have meaning to you. This goes for events, too. The fallacy is one in which only similarities (correlations, matches, etc.) are picked as proof, but dissimilarities are ignored. There's a Wikipedia page on it.
Q typically refers to "what are the odds" in the context of time stamps and people saying or doing specific things, not the outcomes of a random number generator. The former AREN'T coincidental even though they may seem to be on the surface - that's Q's point. Q has control over those. They can choose when to post and when the actors do what they do.
This case seems compelling to many because the odds really are low-ish, but not fantastically low (the first anon I replied to said 1 in 2 trillion or some such nonsense). I would put it (likely) in the 1 in a few thousand range for a single event called a priori (without my scripting tools, it would be hard to calculate). However, like you said, there were a lot of people on at the same time, many asking the same question, too, which increases the odds of finding matches.
We also don't have any knowledge (BO might) of how the UIDs are generated. For something relatively unimportant like UIDs, I can't imagine there is any heavy duty algorithm generating the values, which typically means successive values are correlated (not always). I don't know how it works, so I can't really say for sure.
Yet you're the one arguing with me. Funny how that works.
It is also Q that says "use logic." You conveniently ignore that part.
Kek!
Kek!
Damn, hit the wrong post to reply to. Sorry anons.