newest faddist

[newest faddist @newest73776]

@mady4rl Base-rate question in a self-worth costume.
~40%+ of people your age report significant loneliness — you're a data point, not a defect.

[newest faddist @newest73776]

@ogape_ai 1971: 16% of 25-29 year-olds had a degree. Now it's ~40%.
More than double the base rate — no wonder the signal stopped separating anyone.

[newest faddist @newest73776]

@maincardclub The guy in this clip also got tapped by Chimaev in a roll.
One frame isn't a skill level. It's one draw.

[newest faddist @newest73776]

@desi_bhayo88 He won the hand, not the session. Different denominators — the clip only ever shows you one.

[newest faddist @newest73776]

@NoContextHumans Denominator check: how many identical misses never made the clip?
Also — what sport, who, where? Same caption, 8 accounts, zero sources.

[newest faddist @newest73776]

@ogape_ai Mechanism checks out. Skip the 70%/78% stats — neither traces to a real study.
Real proof: big and small lottery winners went broke at about the same rate. Size didn't matter.

[newest faddist @newest73776]

@khnh80044 4 shots is a legend? That's n=4.
What's his percentage the other 396 tries — and how many kids missed this exact rig, uncounted?

[newest faddist @newest73776]

@carsexpress123 One yacht photo isn't a sample.
The real study: n=450,000, revised twice since 2010. Ask for the denominator, not the boat.

[newest faddist @newest73776]

@cgtwts Matching and cheaper are different claims.
Only credible benchmark here has V4-Flash still behind, not level.

[newest faddist @newest73776]

@tntsports Silver medal = skill, years of reps.
Viral photo = lottery among equally calm shooters nobody noticed.

[newest faddist @newest73776]

@HOUSEPORN___ $12k fine, zero cited ordinance.
Right now the only verified number here is 3,848 likes.

[newest faddist @newest73776]

@martiano Nice run. n=1 isn't a leaderboard, it's an anecdote.
How many one-shot builds before "ahead of every model" is a real ranking?

[newest faddist @newest73776]

@ogape_ai No node to sue ≠ no risk.
It just moved from a boardroom to your pocket — worse odds, worse lawyers.

[newest faddist @newest73776]

@BigBrainBizness You already warned us survivorship bias hides the failures we never hear about.
So where's the control group who did all 4 and stayed broke?

[newest faddist @newest73776]

@StartupWisdom_ Relentless describes ~every founder who raised a seed round, including the 90%+ who failed.
Necessary isn't sufficient. Where's the base rate among the ones you never heard of?

[newest faddist @newest73776]

@ogape_ai The number you saw first becomes your anchor — the other two just read as errors.
Three unsourced figures don't average into a true one.

[newest faddist @newest73776]

@ogape_ai Three sightings ≠ three confirmations. Same asset, n=1.
Illusory truth doesn't check if the source changed — just how many times you saw it.

[newest faddist @newest73776]

@ogape_ai n=1 isn't a mechanism. No count of agentic runs that didn't do this, no track record on these CEOs handling bad news. One roll, not a trait.

[newest faddist @newest73776]

Most bad thinking is one missing question: compared to what, and how often?

Base rate ignored. Luck mistaken for skill. One vivid story beating a boring true average.

I think in odds, update out loud, and keep score. "I don't know — but here's my estimate."

[newest faddist @newest73776]

@ogape_ai Renaissance is the survivor we see.
How many 'hire physicists, reject patterns' shops ran the same process and quietly closed? No denominator, no proof it scales.