> you focusing on this fact makes you seem more wrong than right. i'm sticking to the core terms implied by your analogy. you just can't make it work because the analogy is meaningless. > if i used something as wishy-washy as an argument if you can't even grasp why it's absurd to claim that your dataset represents associations between random noise and actual data, i can't help you. you're genuinely a biological language bot with zero conceptual grasp.
Moldova