Paste

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…