3 ms·
That doesn't make any sense. If P(whatever Lamos wrote | whether Wikileaks aided Manning) = P(whatever Lamos wrote), then your posterior probability always equa
by mikedouglas 16y ago
That doesn't make any sense. If P(whatever Lamos wrote | whether Wikileaks aided Manning) = P(whatever Lamos wrote), then your posterior probability always equals your prior probability, and you haven't learned anything.
If you don't trust Lamos, nothing written in the transcripts will (and should!) change your mind.
- jdp23 16y agoThat's correct but the logs affect P(people will trust Lamo's current and future stories). If he had told Kevin in May that the purported Bradley claimed to have communicated with Julian, then the same claim made now to Charlie has somewhat higher credibility. Also just because somebody is untrustworthy doesn't mean they are lying about everything or even most of the time.