I wasn’t one of the downvotes, but if I’d seen it I would have been.
I count 14 sentences in that post which each deserve an upvote, but then a 15th sentence which more than cancels out all the rest, not due to certainty, but due to literal malevolence!
But you’re awarding Bayes points for a combination of brilliant analysis and anti-goodness motivation? I thought we were anti-UFAI here...
Ha, interesting take. That last sentence was not actually an endorsement of horrible murderous things happening, it was just my way of saying “Now let’s get down to business” about the home stretch of the story.
Thanks for the clarification! I retract my objections.
As for the common criticism, although I’m as adamant as the next person here that “p=1” is impossible without infinite evidence, I don’t think that fact demands that every casual conversation must quantify “1 minus epsilon” or even explicitly acknowledge it.
I wasn’t one of the downvotes, but if I’d seen it I would have been.
I count 14 sentences in that post which each deserve an upvote, but then a 15th sentence which more than cancels out all the rest, not due to certainty, but due to literal malevolence!
But you’re awarding Bayes points for a combination of brilliant analysis and anti-goodness motivation? I thought we were anti-UFAI here...
Ha, interesting take. That last sentence was not actually an endorsement of horrible murderous things happening, it was just my way of saying “Now let’s get down to business” about the home stretch of the story.
Thanks for the clarification! I retract my objections.
As for the common criticism, although I’m as adamant as the next person here that “p=1” is impossible without infinite evidence, I don’t think that fact demands that every casual conversation must quantify “1 minus epsilon” or even explicitly acknowledge it.