First things first, the entire supposition is fatally flawed. Your contention is that "we" control hundreds of thousands of accounts that we have either created or purchased, and the ages of those accounts are distributed over a decade or more. Let's start there. Can you show the temporal distribution of those hundreds of thousands of accounts? Publish it. Having not done that analysis in a verifiable way shows that you don't know what you're doing and haven't put in the work - both because you don't know how, and because it would mock your goofy delusion. Seriously - you already have your supposed sample population and your positives, yet you can't show anything about those... Either you don't have hundreds of thousands of accounts, or you don't know how to plot the distribution and determine its distribution function. Ouch. You already lost. Secondly, the only accounts you try to compare this way are those that are vocal, antagonistic, speak in spaces, are clearly different people. Would a transnational criminal conspiracy capable of stealing billions and controlling politics really be so inept as to not randomly distribute the accounts they put in the spotlight? Explain the logic. Reconcile being so brilliant and powerful, yet not selecting from the hundreds of thousands of accounts you claim "we" control in a random fashion. Wouldn't it be more telling if the creation dates were completely random, yet other, more meaningful signals were verifiably consistent? You don't even realize that you shoot yourself in the foot. Clueless morons... desperate, clout-chasing losers... Always have one thing in common: low intelligence and high hubris. On the Birthday Paradox, you've claimed consistently that you're comparing within the bounds of one week. That's a smaller window than a year, and is called a "bounded context" - and the Birthday Paradox still applies, though NARROWED in range, instead of your supposition that it EXPANDS in range (and it would still apply there, but have one more factor - the year). This alone is disqualifying, but at minimum, your initial input has to change to a 50% chance, unless you can disprove the Paradox. ChatGPT can't help you here. Your very first quantifier is patently absurd and ignorant of basic statistical rigor. Ouch, again. Your presumption about the distribution of account creation being static and linear is disqualifying entirely, even excluding extrinsic drivers. Twitter doesn't use a FIFO queue with a capacity bound of 1 for processing new accounts. You have zero structural, verifiable evidence that the (laughable) idea of a linear distribution applies. So, what work have you done to model the distribution? You haven't because you don't know what you're talking about. You're a loser with no education and no grasp of the shit you google and try to regurgitate. If you knew anything about stats, you'd know that you need to model each window and identify anomalous data compared to the mean. When there is anomalous data, you'd identify extrinsic factors that could be contributors. This is so absurdly obvious for social media, it's like you don't know the business model... Ouch. Ouchie, ouch. For your cofactors, you're taking references you can't define and trying to give them meaning. You're not giving citations, nor definitions of the heuristics that define "interest" or "meme stocks" - you're just grabbing something you find convenient and misusing it. Is the interest verifiably present at the moment of account creation? Is it something transient, that comes with news cycles? For how long must someone express "interest" to be qualified? Is the distribution static and linear or does it respond to extrinsic factors, like news? What about accounts that are not part of the "syndicate" (in your delusion)? What is the probability of a false positiver based on this undefined "interest" parameter? Oh, that's Greek to you, because you're a LARP. Your "research" - if scientific - would account for these factors, but you are no scientist. You're just desperate to be right about a paranoid delusion that everyone finds hilarious. And it's all because I embarrassed you into deleting hundreds of lies about your background in a single night... I hope you finally caught up on sleep that week... You were at it for hours and hours, and I kept sending you ones you missed, which you deleted in shame before deactivating. Oh, but it was a "trick" to "draw out" people who were already shitting on you for being a moron and LARP. Lol. Hey, why'd you keep lying about your background after that? You had drawn us out, right? Yet you still lie in every space call, and in half your tweets. I know why: your life is a source of shame, and you're desperate to invent an alternate reality in which you aren't a massive loser with no future. So, you don't define "network connections" or "network overlap" and neither does Pew. Pew also isn't measuring your sample pool, are they? Do you need someone to explain what that means? How are you claiming any form of scientific method without defining your selection criteria and showing that it is meaningful and not accounted for by a systemic error or factor? You've done none of this, because these words are new to you. You're clueless, Kory. You're clueless. You are a moron. The best is "specific behaviors" - completely undefined, unquantified, and indefensible. Describe these behaviors in measurable, verifiable terms. Then, show the studies that measure those verifiable behaviors in the general population versus your target group (accounts created within 7 days of each other, arbitrarily). The lack of this distinction is a disqualifier. Here's my favorite, because it shows you don't even understand arithmetic: when expanding your selection criteria from the same day to the same week, you MULTIPLY the (bullshit) derived value by 7, when you should be DIVIDING it. You can't even math, bro. Your model is illogical and your math is... random. Meaningless. Multiplying made up numbers doesn't prove your theory - it shows that, unlike a scientist, your goal is to prove your theory above all else. It's masturbation. Everything about your delusion proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. Using a simple factorial function for non-correlated (non-defined, even!) cofactors is like using linear regression to overfit data without provable linear correlations: it's what a simpleton would try when they don't have other options. Your first step, if you knew what you were doing, would be to ask whether the creation/purchase of hundreds of thousands of accounts would lead a powerful, conspiratorial "syndicate" to flippantly create accounts, minutes or hours apart, for talking this. Why does that make sense? Why create any? We already have hundreds of thousands to use, no?

But fine, even if you accept absurd, childish logic (and you can't answer that in any cogent way), you'd start with understanding the distribution and clustering of account creation, period, over some period of time. From that distribution, you'd plot the target accounts within the distribution for that time period and apply a function looking for outliers. If the target accounts fit the distribution, you already lost. If they don't, you'd expand and contract the start and end of the sample period to see if there's a windowing effect that is impacting that. You could use the same outlier model for this, if it's parametric. Once you've identified accounts that are anomalies in this space, you'd have to propose a defensible set of heuristics that can prove they were created by the same person. If not the same person, why would proximal creation have any significance? You can't answer this. You've published no defensible criteria, so we will assume you're starting with people who you think are meanies, then clustering by creation date, and after that trying to force-fit nonsensical cofactors with no rigor because it makes you feel good. This, by the way, is how conspiracy theorists operate. It's not what scientists do - not that you'd know. So, you've not got two accounts created within 7 days of each other by a "syndicate" with "hundreds of thousands" of "purchased" and "automated" accounts. That lingering question of why someone wouldn't use a random account, or why there would be any patterns at all in hundreds of thousands of accounts purchased and created over 10-15 years, pops up again, but given that we are dealing with a clueless moron with imaginary friends who compulsively lies about everything, we have no choice but to skip details like logic. Ok, so two accounts who were meanies to you and created in the same week. Are they the same person? Were they created in response to news, or other extrinsic factors? Nah, that makes no sense. It makes much more sense that an all-powerful "syndicate" creates and purchases hundreds of thousands of accounts yet is forced to show themselves by going to twitter dot com and clicking buttons manually, sometimes hours apart. That's perfect logic. No other option. You definitely don't look like a clown. Those two are now assumed to be the same person because they (at some point? how frequently? in what ways? how consistently?) happen to "show interest" in a small set of "meme stocks." You then use the total number of stocks as a cofactor, without accounting for transient "interest" or the distribution of said interest across a population. Can someone show interest in varying numbers of stocks? What constitutes "interest?" Does the expressed "interest" align to extrinsic factors, like news? Are there other ways of viewing that "interest" such as being compelled to trash talk conspiracy theorists? No, that would be too complex and wouldn't fit the desperate desire you have to be right about something, when you aren't. At all. How do I know? Because I'm the one who twisted your feeble brain inside out and convinced you that shitposts were reality. The truth is, I own you and you're the dumbest, most useless house elf ever. So, we have accounts that you've selected based on their trolling, most of whom have been heard in spaces - often simultaneously - and are clearly not the same person. You want them to be, so you show that they have "shown interest" in a few hilarious meme stonks. What you ignore is that the interest itself is your actual selection criteria. You aren't modeling from creation date forward. You're modeling from, "This is a mean person who makes fun of losers like me" and then try to overfit them into a model that has no validity or rigor whatsoever. If I start with, "accounts who talk shit about the Orioles are probably part of a syndicate!" and then look for signs, it's not science - it's conspiratorial thinking and flawless, childish logic. Oh, they made fun of the best team in baseball, and look, many of them were created in the same year, when the Orioles were kicking ass! Must be a syndicate! Oh, shit, they also sometimes see and like each others' tweets! Must be a syndicate instead of the entire function of social media, which is clustering based on interest vectors... Kiddo, I'm only two factors into your pathetic, fatally-flawed model, and I've already invalidated it infinite times. You're just stupid. You're a loser. You're a compulsive liar ashamed of how his empty life has turned out, so you invent these childish fantasies on the internet for attention and validation. You get that validation from a dwindling number of similar losers who can't accept that they lost money because they don't know how to trade. So, you move from group to group, trying to drum up credibility, but it's not working. The shit you propose is too retarded. You're not in a masters program. You've never helped solve any crimes. You were not a journalist. Writing blotter articles for your school paper doesn't count as "investigative journalism" you absolute clown. There are no "legacies" - your imaginary friends and pathetic superhero fantasy is truly sad. You never fought MMA, and never "lost in the qualifiers" for UFC. You weren't Navy EOD. You got discharged for... nevermind. Your payroll records show how little you make and how you've never been paid to write, to moderate comic cons, or any of the other shit you've claimed. You use a couple of dumb websites and ChatGPT to try desperately to find an angle, but you can't get it right. Your "stylometry" is hilarious, because you've shown the goofy freeware site you use. Publish your NLP research, or get on a space and let me grill you and embarrass you about these topics. You won't have time to google or ask ChatGPT, and you'll end up deleting your accounts in shame - including the imaginary friends. You did kite checks and were found guilty, and it wasn't a mistake - you're just a poor loser. You aren't a hacker. You aren't an SE. You aren't anon. You never knew SA existed until I baited you. You're a fraud, and it's already been shown endlessly. I've fed you terms you thought were legit, and you started using them - all the while, I was narrating the MANIPULATION to an audience who were cracking up about your level of stupidity. You're a sad person, Kory, and even your childish fantasies are fucking LAME. You don't and never will know my name, which is why you're scared to make any statement whatsoever about any person. Your goofy hints are obvious, but until you man up and say something, you're just embarrassing yourself to a growing audience who sees you as a complete and utter fool. You've accused me of being dozens of people, and all have been wrong. You are so desperate to be important, and have some talent, but stalker-like obsession is not a talent. It's a disorder. You're mentally deranged and there's only one way to prove me wrong: SAY. MY. NAME. Keep failing, as if you had a choice.