Advertisement
Guest User

Untitled

a guest
Sep 9th, 2017
476
0
Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 3.05 KB | None | 0 0
  1. From: Mark Trynor <mark@hbgary.com>
  2. To: Aaron Barr <aaron@hbgary.com>
  3.  
  4. I'm not doubting that you're doing analysis. I'm doubting that
  5. statistically that analysis has any mathematical weight to back it. I put
  6. it at less than .1% chance that it's right. You're still working off of the
  7. idea that the data is accurate. mmmm.....taco!
  8.  
  9. On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Aaron Barr <aaron@hbgary.com> wrote:
  10.  
  11. > Wait just a minute.
  12. >
  13. > I considered Dan but then both Ted and I decided u would be better.
  14. >
  15. > Not all things that are worthwhile are easy... :) Ur still good right?
  16. >
  17. > :)
  18. >
  19. > On the gut feeling thing...dude I don't just go by gut feeling...I spend
  20. > hours doing analysis and come to conclusions that I know can be
  21. > automated...so put the taco down and get to work!
  22. >
  23. > On Jan 19, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Mark Trynor wrote:
  24. >
  25. > Yeah, how did that work out the first time. You wanted Dan to be your
  26. > engineer not me. Want me to check that facebook page "I listened to Aaron
  27. > Barr and now I'm under investigation". Yeah, your gut feelings are
  28. > awesome! Plus, scientifically proven that gut feelings are wrong by real
  29. > scientist types.
  30. >
  31. > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Aaron Barr <aaron@hbgary.com> wrote:
  32. >
  33. >> pretty soon we will be running a company in Mantech or TASC called...
  34. >>
  35. >> Magpii
  36. >>
  37. >> Tell me my gut feelings are wrong again...
  38. >>
  39. >>
  40. >> On Jan 19, 2011, at 12:20 PM, Mark Trynor wrote:
  41. >>
  42. >> Your probability based on frequency right now is a gut feeling. Gut
  43. >> feelings are usually wrong.
  44. >>
  45. >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Mark Trynor <mark@hbgary.com> wrote:
  46. >>
  47. >>> right, which is why i know your numbers are too small to draw the
  48. >>> conclusion but you don't want to accept it.
  49. >>>
  50. >>>
  51. >>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Aaron Barr <aaron@hbgary.com> wrote:
  52. >>>
  53. >>>> noooo....its about probabilty based on frequency...c'mon ur way smarter
  54. >>>> at math than me.
  55. >>>>
  56. >>>> On Jan 19, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Mark Trynor wrote:
  57. >>>>
  58. >>>> and basing that assumption off of guilt by association
  59. >>>>
  60. >>>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Mark Trynor <mark@hbgary.com> wrote:
  61. >>>>
  62. >>>>> You keep assuming you're right.
  63. >>>>>
  64. >>>>>
  65. >>>>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Aaron Barr <aaron@hbgary.com> wrote:
  66. >>>>>
  67. >>>>>> What? Yes it will.
  68. >>>>>>
  69. >>>>>> I am running throug analysis on the anonymous group right now and it
  70. >>>>>> definately would.
  71. >>>>>>
  72. >>>>>>
  73. >>>>>> On Jan 19, 2011, at 12:08 PM, Mark Trynor wrote:
  74. >>>>>>
  75. >>>>>> No it won't. It will tell you how mindless their friends are at
  76. >>>>>> clicking stupid shit that comes up on a friends page. especially when they
  77. >>>>>> first join facebook.
  78. >>>>>>
  79. >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Aaron Barr <aaron@hbgary.com> wrote:
  80. >>>>>>
  81. >>>>>>> I would like to be able to do.
  82. >>>>>>>
  83. >>>>>>> Is check a persons friends list against the people that have liked or
  84. >>>>>>> joined a particular group.
  85. >>>>>>>
  86. >>>>>>> That will give me information on how tightly connected that person is
  87. >>>>>>> to that group or page...
  88. >>>>>>>
  89. >>>>>>> :)
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement