If the distribution was “a ring of 1 m around the aimed point” then you would know for sure you won’t hit the terrorist that way
Well, not if you factor in other factors that might luckily exactly compensate for the Coriolis effect (e.g., the wind). But yeah, considering that it’s a Gaussian distribution where the top is “target hit” (rather than “kid hit” or “rock over there hit”) just because that’s where you happen to be aiming (ignoring the Coriolis effect, the wind and all) seems very suspiciously convenient.
I suppose that Gaussian is technically the correct prior for “very high number of error factors with a completely unknown but bounded probability distribution”. But reality is, that’s not a good description of this specific situation, even with as much ignorance as you want thrown in.
Yup! (a related comment fwiw).
Well, not if you factor in other factors that might luckily exactly compensate for the Coriolis effect (e.g., the wind). But yeah, considering that it’s a Gaussian distribution where the top is “target hit” (rather than “kid hit” or “rock over there hit”) just because that’s where you happen to be aiming (ignoring the Coriolis effect, the wind and all) seems very suspiciously convenient.
I suppose that Gaussian is technically the correct prior for “very high number of error factors with a completely unknown but bounded probability distribution”. But reality is, that’s not a good description of this specific situation, even with as much ignorance as you want thrown in.