I'd say truths, perhaps with the notable exception of certain simple mathematical truths, are so elusive as to be beyond human capacity to apprehend if they even properly exist at all.
Our universe is filled to the brim with invincible uncertainty, and completely devoid of underlying meaning.
My votes in particular aren't monetarily worth much one way or the other in any case.
Thanks for the engagement and the diversion.
Here's an external link to what seems to me like an interesting paper in return. Perhaps you'll find it interesting too.
Conspiratorial ideation is the tendency of individuals to believe that events and power relations are secretly manipulated by certain clandestine groups and organisations.
I think they are irrelevant to understanding the bilderberg group's agenda...
This intellectual blathering doesn't expose conspiracies, it is used to make them inexplicable. I am attempting to do the exact opposite.
WTF is the point of reading or writing crap like this?
We initially assume that for a given conspiracy, conspirators are in general dedicated for the most part to the concealment of their activity. We further assume that a leak of information from any conspirator is sufficient to expose the conspiracy and render it redundant—such leaks might be intentional (in the form of whistle-blowing or defection) or accidental (mistaken release of information). We concern ourselves only with potential intrinsic exposure of the conspiracy and do not consider for now the possibility that external agents may reveal the operation. Thus, it follows that the act of a conspiracy being exposed is a relatively rare and independent event. We can then apply Poisson statistics, and express the probability of at least one leak sufficient to lead to failure of the conspiracy where ϕ is the mean number of failures expected per unit time. This is in turn a function of number of conspirators with time N(t) and p, the intrinsic probability of failure per person per year. Then we may specify ϕ by writing ψ = 1 − p for brevity, the probability of conspiracy failure can be re-written as a function of time
As far as the equations themselves, I have no idea what they show, and given that I had to do some applied maths courses as part of my education, I suspect that 99.0% of people globally would find them as meaningless as I do!
So it's too deadpan to be hilarious?
Or just too real to be tasteful?
Too deadpan for my vote specifically.
Still hilarious, for one reason or another.
Oh well, truth is not determined by votes!
Neither are elections but that will be another post...
"...truth is not determined by votes!"
Indeed.
I'd say truths, perhaps with the notable exception of certain simple mathematical truths, are so elusive as to be beyond human capacity to apprehend if they even properly exist at all.
Our universe is filled to the brim with invincible uncertainty, and completely devoid of underlying meaning.
My votes in particular aren't monetarily worth much one way or the other in any case.
Thanks for the engagement and the diversion.
Here's an external link to what seems to me like an interesting paper in return. Perhaps you'll find it interesting too.
Cheers.
Well yes, that is what I'm saying...
Conspiratorial ideation is the tendency of individuals to believe that events and power relations are secretly manipulated by certain clandestine groups and organisations.
By the way, what did you think of the equations in the above paper?
I think they are irrelevant to understanding the bilderberg group's agenda...
This intellectual blathering doesn't expose conspiracies, it is used to make them inexplicable. I am attempting to do the exact opposite.
WTF is the point of reading or writing crap like this?
We initially assume that for a given conspiracy, conspirators are in general dedicated for the most part to the concealment of their activity. We further assume that a leak of information from any conspirator is sufficient to expose the conspiracy and render it redundant—such leaks might be intentional (in the form of whistle-blowing or defection) or accidental (mistaken release of information). We concern ourselves only with potential intrinsic exposure of the conspiracy and do not consider for now the possibility that external agents may reveal the operation. Thus, it follows that the act of a conspiracy being exposed is a relatively rare and independent event. We can then apply Poisson statistics, and express the probability of at least one leak sufficient to lead to failure of the conspiracy where ϕ is the mean number of failures expected per unit time. This is in turn a function of number of conspirators with time N(t) and p, the intrinsic probability of failure per person per year. Then we may specify ϕ by writing ψ = 1 − p for brevity, the probability of conspiracy failure can be re-written as a function of time
As far as the equations themselves, I have no idea what they show, and given that I had to do some applied maths courses as part of my education, I suspect that 99.0% of people globally would find them as meaningless as I do!