A consequence of this principle is that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.absence.
I was going by colors (that’s how it appears there, instead of the crossed out effect here). But it’s not clear what the change is. (I’m trying to understand how to read this stuff.)
The change I made was turning the sentence into a hyperlink. I think it shows that way because of the little circle it adds at the end of links (so it sees the word “absence*” instead of “absence” and thinks it’s a different word).
Ah. Because of the colors used, the green of a link wasn’t apparent (the addition might be green, but green on green was invisible, and the other one was a different color, so).
When reading https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/conservation-of-expected-evidence/history, I noticed this:
A consequence of this principle is that absence of evidence is evidence of
absence.absence.I was going by colors (that’s how it appears there, instead of the crossed out effect
here). But it’s not clear what the change is. (I’m trying to understand how to read this stuff.)The change I made was turning the sentence into a hyperlink. I think it shows that way because of the little circle it adds at the end of links (so it sees the word “absence*” instead of “absence” and thinks it’s a different word).
Ah. Because of the colors used, the green of a link wasn’t apparent (the addition might be green, but green on green was invisible, and the other one was a different color, so).