3 ms·
There is a possibility that you reading too much into the comment which started this thread. It appears to have quite literally meant "the CIA caught terrorists
by qb45 11y ago
There is a possibility that you reading too much into the comment which started this thread. It appears to have quite literally meant "the CIA caught terrorists with X so they figured everyone with X is a terrorist". Without convincing evidence that:
a) this was the reasoning used
b) this reasoning was invalid
> Your reply did not, in any way, address the conditional probability issue.
I think I did it here:
Also, you probably don't know whether this watch actually was common in Afganistan in early 2000s.
- ska 11y agoI was responding to this: "Actually, they say they found time bomb detonators based on this watch." Which, as a response to raising the false positive rate issue, is entirely missing the point. For what it's worth: Also, you probably don't know whether this watch actually was common in Afganistan in early 2000s. Also doesn't actually address the issue with false positive rates and conditional probability, but it is a fair point that the (clearly stated) oversimplification is, in fact, oversimplified.