>> Seems unlikely. But that's not the baseline. > Ok, what is I don't have a number. > and on who's authority? By common sense. The only way to get zero err

>> Seems unlikely. But that's not the baseline. > Ok, what is I don't have a number. > and on who's authority? By common sense. The only way to get zero error in the absence of perfect information is to avoid convictions entirely. I'm not saying I like this trade-off; I'm just saying this is reality. > And just to be sure I understand, you're judging mechanisms designed to come to factual conclusions by evaluating how many of their decisions lean one way, without reference to or concern with their factual basis? No, that's the complete opposite of what I was saying, which was that you have to look a the factual bases and can't just judge by the statistics. Hence my reply earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21773010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21773010