re: Bring Us Your Memes Thread

For those who dare: Q Is Real, Because Math Said So

ETA - Special thanks to American Hypnotist for the article because his work was on the same frequency as my post last night regarding the infinitesimal likelihood of a 2018 post from Q about Assange hitting on the same day/date as news of Assange's release from prison dominating the news cycle.

From the column:

quote:

---

When analyzing Q proofs, there is only one thing that objectively matters, that being the statistical likelihood of Qs posts lining up with Trumps tweets, current events, etc. When it comes to mathematical/statistical analysis, we must be on guard against the tendency of our emotions to muddy the waters—we must go where the data leads, even if the destination appears improbable to us.

Consider the following scenario: If I gave you a pair of dice, what are the odds that you’d roll the number six, six times in a row? Take a quick guess, and then keep reading after you have your answer.

Indeed, the chances that you’d roll six, six times in a row is approximately 1 in 60 million. On the flipside, this means that the chance of any other result occurring would be approximately 59,999,999 out of 60,000,000. Given that each die has six sides (totaling twelve sides when combined), this shows us that we only need a scenario involving twelve factors with six iterations, to produce wildly divergent odds.

Now that we know this is true, note that Q proofs involve thousands of more factors than the scenario we just described. If someone were to tell you that “all Q proofs are just a coincidence,” then this would be the logical equivalent of telling you that it’s reasonable to expect to roll the number six, not six times, but ten million times in a row.

---

In honor of tonight's debate some fond memories

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

Wait... they have to have a license to own a TV?

Can we just send him off to be with Vena now?