We are being Bayesian. It’s a hypothesis that explains the visible evidence very well. It also has a relatively high prior probability (a few percent).
Can you show what priors you used, how you calculated the posteriors, what numbers you got and where the input numbers came from? I highly doubt that hypothesis has a higher posterior probability.
Assuming Sam was an abuser, what would hacking wifi signals do that the level of shadowbanning described not do? It strikes me as unlikely because it doesn’t seem to have much reward in the world where Sam is the abuser.
How hard is it to hack somebody’s wifi?
Also, a traumatized person attributing a seemingly hacked wifi to their serious abuser doesn’t need to mean any mental illness.
We are being Bayesian. It’s a hypothesis that explains the visible evidence very well. It also has a relatively high prior probability (a few percent).
Can you show what priors you used, how you calculated the posteriors, what numbers you got and where the input numbers came from? I highly doubt that hypothesis has a higher posterior probability.
Assuming Sam was an abuser, what would hacking wifi signals do that the level of shadowbanning described not do? It strikes me as unlikely because it doesn’t seem to have much reward in the world where Sam is the abuser.