-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @mr_archenemy
This is a lie. Best estimate I've seen is 1/256 or more.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @mr_archenemy @St_Rev
Looking at Breitbart, it's just the first (or second) Globe correction. They later corrected their correction (again?) to between 1/64 and 1/1024 or something.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mr_archenemy
Yes, it's (w/high probability) between 1/64 and 1/1024. Which isn't the same as 1/1024. Most probable is 1/256 just from the longest segment, and (w/lesser probability) a bit more from other pieces. Which is consistent with having an admixed Cherokee ancestor more recently.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev @mr_archenemy
Every fucking idiot decided this meant 1/1024 because, well, tribalism and lulz and people are fucking idiots.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
and to be further fair to them, i imagine some of them tweeted the 1024 number because that was the only number in one of the Globe's corrections (I think?). a later correction introduced a range?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mr_archenemy
Globe reported 1/32 to 1/512 because they're innumerate; correction fixed the 1/512 but mysteriously didn't mention the 1/32, a bunch of idiots jumped on the corrected 1/1024 as if it were the only number because fuckers don't read.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev @mr_archenemy
To some extent, you're falling for the Trump gambit: stake out an extreme position; have someone 'objective' publicly correct it to a factual but still terrible point. 1/256 is about as insignificant an ancestry as 1/1024.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
St. Rev ☯️ 🏴 😻 Retweeted St. Rev ☯️ 🏴 😻
St. Rev ☯️ 🏴 😻 added,
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.