The India Menace - Street shitting, unsanitary practices, scams, Hindu extremism & other things

[DSHK]

Regardless of what means to us, to employers it means quite a bit.

As far as most of them are concerned its just a work permit at this point

 

[World Famous Quasi Payer]

scamming demon worshipers obsessed with rape and shit

This would be an over the top default bad guys in a video game or novel; and yet its the best description of one of the most populated places on earth. Fucking clown world.

 

[World Famous Quasi Payer]

This is why you can't use both feet when driving an automatic.

Hate to double post, but I had no idea people actual did this. Insane.

 

[1999 prick]

But with all that being said, what is your degree in? Obviously its not in statistics considering you cannot comprehend basic statistics.

“wHerE iS yOuR acAdEmIc cErTifiCaTIoN”
Literally less than 1/5th of Harvard “doctors” cannot do introductory statistics.

Only a midwit like you would deep throat academia and the “experts”.

 

[foam rolla]

View attachment 7068707

Pretty simple actions you could take instead of saying "Oh my gawd. Are you nawt lettin' me out"

1. Tell the pajeet, "Fine I'm not paying you a tip and if you choose to lock me in her then I guess you can't do any more pickups for the rest of the day.
2. Call the police and say you're being forced against your will and locked inside a car.
3. Sperg out and kick the car windows in. Sure, you could get in trouble but a scheming cunt who's locking you inside a car and trying to extort you would make you fear for your personal safety.

 

[Toyota Hilux]

View attachment 7073283

View attachment 7073286

Japan has a rape crisis.

Brownoids and anti-Japan libshits keep using that tragic and disturbing case of Junko Furuta from 40 years ago but then go ahead and do things that are way more brutal quite literally every single day, even today. Pakis aka Muzzjeets performed gangrape and grooming on an industrial scale for 4 decades in the UK, even ground up a girl into kebab meat, the gov't covers it up - not a peep. Spic cartels all over Central and South America do brutal torture and executions to "send a message" - not a peep. Blacks do... I mean do I even have to say all the shit they do? Not a peep. Pajeets gangrape a woman to death and then look up her name on Pornhub so much it's the top trending search worldwide? Not a peep.

Japan isn't a perfect society but it's lightyears ahead in safety (especially women's) than the shitholes these pieces of biomass are from. Again, all of this comes from collective narcissism and there is no cure for narcissism, except maybe a bullet to the back of the head.

3rd world niggers produced two of the most islamic shit to exist: Daisy's destruction and BMT (baby monkey torture). Junku Furuta case is tame compared to hardcore shit third world niggers produce in their disgusting favelas. I can agree that gook nips are pervert subhuman manlets, but they are leagues ahead of 3rd world niggers in intelligence, and the likelihood of getting raped in Japan is low.

 

[Spob]

Do they still publish those Ripley's Believe It Or Not books? Because istfg like half of the sideshows there are from India or neighboring countries

 

[Hitagle]

“wHerE iS yOuR acAdEmIc cErTifiCaTIoN”
Literally less than 1/5th of Harvard “doctors” cannot do introductory statistics.

Only a midwit like you would deep throat academia and the “experts”.
View attachment 7075007

So, people who are college-educated failed a test? Therefore, college graduates are stupid, and their degrees are meaningless. Sound good? I mean if you don't have a degree, I would not think any less of you, but last time I recalled government jobs are pretty stringent and do extensive checks before employment.Honestly, it's not that big of a deal to me that you can't understand imperical evidence. I just wanted to correct some misinformation I saw. Anyway, lets not clog up this dread and shit on the asian nigger pajeets,

 

[Black Man Underwear]

Shitskin in thread. Evacuate!

 

[The Backwards Man]

imagine the smell

 

[MG-34]

View attachment 7075551
View attachment 7075555

imagine the smell

Tragic, the one Boeing plane that should have gone up in flames over the Atlantic, didn't.

 

[GratsTheat783]

Could you post the source for this? Also is my thought for the answer correct?

Spoiler: My guess

If it's a disease 1/1000 people catch, that would put the chance of catching the disease at 0.1%. There's a 5% chance of a positive result being false, which puts the chance of a positive result being true at 95%. 0.1x0.95 = 0.095.
There is a 0.095% chance of someone testing positive, without any other knowledge of their symptoms, actually having the disease.

 

[HOMO FOR LIFE RETURNS]

View attachment 7075551
View attachment 7075555

imagine the smell

Holy shit.

Only India could accomplish this

 

[Janoy's Last Rep]

Could you post the source for this? Also is my thought for the answer correct?

Spoiler: My guess

If it's a disease 1/1000 people catch, that would put the chance of catching the disease at 0.1%. There's a 5% chance of a positive result being false, which puts the chance of a positive result being true at 95%. 0.1x0.95 = 0.095.
There is a 0.095% chance of someone testing positive, without any other knowledge of their symptoms, actually having the disease.

Wouldn’t it just be a 95% chance? The person has already tested positive so the 1/1000 value doesn’t really factor in.

 

[TJT]

I think its phrased poorly. They mention already that 1/1000 people test positive for this illness. For a nice clean number just assume that that is instead 100/100000. So 95 of those people test positive for real and 5 are the error rate and actually are not positive.
The statistics phrasing would be to say that with 95% confidence this person has the disease.

The writer seems to want to focus on the 1/1000 part?

FWIW I do have a Masters in Statistics and IDK what that retard is going for.

 

[Best Dio Dindu Nuffin]

Wouldn’t it just be a 95% chance? The person has already tested positive so the 1/1000 value doesn’t really factor in.

Also is my thought for the answer correct?

The statistics phrasing would be to say that with 95% confidence this person has the disease.

I'm pretty sure the correct answer can be found using conditional probability:

P(A|B) = chance that the person does not have the disease given that they test positive = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B)
P(A') = chance that the person has the disease = 0.001
P(A) = chance that the person does not have the disease = 1 - P(A') = 0.999
P(B) = chance that the person tests positive = false positive rate * chance that the person does not have the disease + true positive rate * chance that the person has the disease = 0.05 * 0.999 + 1.00 * 0.001 = 0.04995 + 0.001 = 0.05095
P(B|A) = chance that the person tests positive given that they do not have the disease = false positive rate = 0.05
Therefore:
P(A|B) = 0.05 * 0.999 / 0.05095 = 0.980373 = 98.0373%
P(A'|B) = chance that the person has the disease given that they test positive = 1 - P(A|B) = 0.019627 = 1.9627%

(Note: I assume that the false negative rate is 0% since it isn't given; therefore, the true positive rate is 100%.)

 

[GratsTheat783]

I'm pretty sure the correct answer can be found using conditional probability:

P(A|B) = chance that the person does not have the disease given that they test positive = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B)
P(A') = chance that the person has the disease = 0.001
P(A) = chance that the person does not have the disease = 1 - P(A') = 0.999
P(B) = chance that the person tests positive = false positive rate * chance that the person does not have the disease + true positive rate * chance that the person has the disease = 0.05 * 0.999 + 1.00 * 0.001 = 0.04995 + 0.001 = 0.05095
P(B|A) = chance that the person tests positive given that they do not have the disease = false positive rate = 0.05
Therefore:
P(A|B) = 0.05 * 0.999 / 0.05095 = 0.980373 = 98.0373%
P(A'|B) = chance that the person has the disease given that they test positive = 1 - P(A|B) = 0.019627 = 1.9627%

(Note: I assume that the false negative rate is 0% since it isn't given; therefore, the true positive rate is 100%.)

You got it. Source.

I only recently started brushing up on my maths again and haven't done probabilities yet. I'll get on that soon.

 

[1999 prick]

I'm pretty sure the correct answer can be found using conditional probability:

P(A|B) = chance that the person does not have the disease given that they test positive = P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B)
P(A') = chance that the person has the disease = 0.001
P(A) = chance that the person does not have the disease = 1 - P(A') = 0.999
P(B) = chance that the person tests positive = false positive rate * chance that the person does not have the disease + true positive rate * chance that the person has the disease = 0.05 * 0.999 + 1.00 * 0.001 = 0.04995 + 0.001 = 0.05095
P(B|A) = chance that the person tests positive given that they do not have the disease = false positive rate = 0.05
Therefore:
P(A|B) = 0.05 * 0.999 / 0.05095 = 0.980373 = 98.0373%
P(A'|B) = chance that the person has the disease given that they test positive = 1 - P(A|B) = 0.019627 = 1.9627%

(Note: I assume that the false negative rate is 0% since it isn't given; therefore, the true positive rate is 100%.)

My approach to this was a lot simpler but still correct lol.
Basically out of 1/1000 I know that 1 person is to be truly positive.
lets say I do the test to 1000 hypothetical patients I will be given 50 who has a false positive. (1000 x 0.05 = 50)
So i have 51 positive patients and that gives me 1/51 (1.96%) chance that someone is truly positive.

 

[Crispy Jakes]

I'm black

KF posters over the last two pages following this information:

 

[stares at error messages]

Even 15 years ago people were annoyed by the jeet stare

This is the way that a rape gang metastasizes.