TLDR: I highly recommend HN readers skip this poorly-written article and go read "Example 2: Drunk drivers" on Wikipedia's article about the Base Rate Fallacy i

TLDR: I highly recommend HN readers skip this poorly-written article and go read "Example 2: Drunk drivers" on Wikipedia's article about the Base Rate Fallacy instead [1]. You'll probably learn it more and get better context. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy instead. Ok, I'm going to put on my harsh editor's hat. I'll abbreviate the Prosecutor's Fallacy as PF. Here are some glaring deficiencies: 1. The article goes not get to the point quickly (or at all!); it doesn't define PF up front nor ever. 2. The article doesn't properly situate the concept; it does not recognize synonyms for PF, which include: "base rate fallacy", "base rate neglect", or "base rate bias", "defense attorney's fallacy". 3. Poor logical flow. One example: Saying the PF "involves" conditional probability without having defined it first, much less at all -- is frustrating to the reader. 4. Poor reasoning. One example: The claim that the PF "is most often associated with miscarriages of justice." isn't plausible nor defended. It should be rephrased to say "is often associated". 5. A lack of organizational cues. Most obviously, the article doesn't have any headings. It desperately needs them. 6. Various formatting problems. For one, the top quotation should be formatted as a blockquote. Overall, the article would benefit from several more drafts. I'm pretty disappointed a professional organization would hit "publish" on this one. I'll try to find a way to share my feedback with the editor(s) and author. In the meanwhile, I suggest HN people read this instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy Why? The concept is explained in a self-contained way, followed by self-contained examples. I really appreciate that approach. Slight tangent: On a more happy note, I think a lot of software developers are better writers than they give themselves credit for. I don't think most software developers would make the same mistakes as this author. I'm not saying we're all great writers, but many of us do have a strong sense of logical flow and organization.