I think the article is abusing Bayes Rule. Keeping in line with the other examples in the article, why not: 1 out of 1 bombing attack resulted in death? Becaus

I think the article is abusing Bayes Rule. Keeping in line with the other examples in the article, why not: 1 out of 1 bombing attack resulted in death? Because bombing attacks are not something you choose to do (as opposed to skydiving or riding a motorcycle). Also, the threat level is not uniform across the country. Also, there haven't been a million bombings so we're doing statistics with one sample. Also, we're also expecting the bombings to continue. There are a lot of misinterpretations and oversimplifications here. I find it highly irrelevant, as a person working in a large town, frequently being in highly populated areas, in a country that's possibly a target for ISIS to compare myself with the average person living in a different country. It's almost like assuming that smokers and non-smokers have the same chance of dying from lung cancer, and then using the entire population of the world as reference to prove that smoking is actually pretty healthy.