This is a pretty silly blog post. The complaint comes down to "a Bayesian model will always place a lower probability on outcomes that have not been observed th

This is a pretty silly blog post. The complaint comes down to "a Bayesian model will always place a lower probability on outcomes that have not been observed than outcomes which have been observed already" which... of course it would! In what situation where you're trying to understand an exchangeable set of outcomes would you think you should put more probability on things that you haven't seen than those you have? The only things I can dream up violate exchangeability (ie for instance, a finite bag of different color marbles, where you draw without replacement).