Right, there many other cases that require being dealt with complexity... But that would be a fault in logic - not treating Bayesian contexts (of priors and po

Right, there many other cases that require being dealt with complexity... But that would be a fault in logic - not treating Bayesian contexts (of priors and posteriors) properly, outside a solid framework. Which should be a recognized part of the process. Not many centuries ago a form called "spectral evidence" was used, according to which that the victim stated that the suspect appeared to them in dreams and fantasies was valid evidence - it was used in the Salem witch trials, for example. It is possible to see a definite lack of "good common sense". (And a parallel title on the HN frontpage today goes "[Autoconf] makes me think we stopped evolving too soon".) This said, > there may be less issues with “enhance” than many of the items listed above one thing is imperfect measurement and false positives, another hallucinating details...