3 ms·

No. Anytime someone potentially possesses information that is damning to a company and that person is killed… the low probability of such an even being a rando

No. Anytime someone potentially possesses information that is damning to a company and that person is killed… the low probability of such an even being a random coincidence is quite low. It is so low such that it is extremely reasonable to consider the potential for an actual assassination while not precluding that a coincidence is a possibility.

lolinder 2y ago
> Anytime someone potentially possesses information that is damning to a company and that person is killed… the low probability of such an even being a random coincidence is quite low. You're running into the birthday paradox here. The probability of a specific witness dying before they can testify in a lawsuit is low. The probability of any one of dozens of people involved in a lawsuit dying before it's resolved is actually rather high.
- smt88 2y ago
  A 26yo dying is not "one of dozens," it's ~1/10,000 in the US (and likely much lower if we consider this guy's background and socioeconomic status).
  - lolinder 2y ago
    If we're going to control for life situations, you have to calculate the suicide rate for people who are actively involved in a high stakes lawsuit against a former employer, which is going to be much higher than average. Then factor in non-suicide death rates as well. Then consider that there are apparently at least 12 like him in this lawsuit, and several other lawsuits pending. I'm not going to pretend to know what the exact odds are, but it's going to end up way higher than 1/10k.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  Right, so given the paradox, consider both possibilities rather then dismiss one like the parent is implying here.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    I've considered the probabilities of both and find one to be far more likely.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      What a useless answer. I considered whether your answer was influenced by mental deficiency and bias and I considered one possibility to be more likely then the other.
  - XorNot 2y ago
    Or you could just look at the facts of the case (currently: no foul play suspected). Are the cops in on it? The morgue? The local city? How high does this go? This isn't something which happened in isolation. This isn't "someone died". It's "someone died, and dozens of people are going to sign off that this obviously not a suicide was definitely a suicide". Like, is that possible? Can you fake a suicide and leave no evidence you did? If you can then how many suicides aren't actually suicides but homicides? How would we know? You're acting like it's a binary choice of probabilities but it isn't.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      Why did you have to make it go in the direction of conspiracy theory? Of course not. An assassination that looks like a suicide but isn’t is extremely possible. You don't have enough details from the article to make a call on this. > You're acting like it's a binary choice of probabilities but it isn't. It is a binary choice because that’s typically how the question is formulated in the process of the scientific method. Was it suicide or was it not a suicide? Binary. Once that question is analyzed you can dig deeper into was it an assassination or was it not? Essentially two binary questions are needed to cover every possibility here and to encompass suicide and assassination.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
FireBeyond 2y ago
I've listened to many comments here on some of these, saying it must be assassination "because the person insisted, "If I'm ever found dead, it's not suicide!"." This is sometimes despite extensive mental health history. Entirely possible. But in my career as a paramedic, I've (sadly) lost count of the number of mental health patients who have said, "Yeah, that was just a glitch, I'm not suicidal, not now/nor then." ... and gone on to commit or attempt suicide in extremely short order.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  Right. It could be but it could not be. Your paramedic knowledge makes sense and you’ve rightly stated that the assassination theory is a possibility.
SideQuark 2y ago
Computer the probability, don’t make claims without making a solid estimate. No, it’s not low. No need to put conspiracies before evidence, and certainly not by making claims you’ve not done no diligence on. And the article provides statements by professionals who routinely investigate homicides and suicides that they have no reason to believe anything other than suicide.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  Who the hell can compute a number from this? All probabilities on this case are made with a gut. Why don’t you tell me the probability instead of demanding one from me? You’re the one making a claim that professional judgment makes the probability so solid that it’s basically a suicide. So tell me about your computation. What gets me is the level of stupid you have to be to not even consider the other side. Like if a person literally tells you he’s not going to suicide and if he does it’s an assassination then he suicides and your first instinct is to only trust what the professionals say well… I can’t help you.
  - SideQuark 2y ago
    > Who the hell can compute a number from this? Anyone who puts thought into the problem instead of jumping to conspiracies. Men in that age group commit suicide at rate X. Company Y has Z employees. Over time period T there is a K % chance of a suicide. Among all R companies from which a person like you finds conspiracies at every turn the odds a finding a death is S% . Not a single value in this chain is “made with a gut.” All are extremely defensible and determined scientifically, and if really care, you can obtain them all with errorbounds and 95% confidence intervals and the works. And you do basic math, and voila, your initial claim is nonsense. Or simply read about the birthday paradox, wonder if it applies, realize it does, stop jumping off the wagon. > why don’t you….. You’re the one pulling conspiracies out of thin air despite no evidence, and you made the claim. The onus is to defend your claim when asked, especially now that you’ve been given evidence for a solid argument against it. One not pulled out of thin air. > what gets me… No I see the other side. And for every time someone ignores the presented evidence, ignores basic statistics, ignores a good methodology when presented one, for each such case, I have seen zero cases out of thousands of such conspiracies where it came true. And I’ll 100% trust professionals over someone so innumerate as to be unable to do simple math, and get angry when it’s suggested super sneaky death wizards didn’t kill a minor player while ignoring dozens of more important players makes less sense than simple statistical likelihood. The latter is rarely correct. I’ll even amend to never correct.

lolinder 2y ago

> Anytime someone potentially possesses information that is damning to a company and that person is killed… the low probability of such an even being a random coincidence is quite low. You're running into the birthday paradox here. The probability of a specific witness dying before they can testify in a lawsuit is low. The probability of any one of dozens of people involved in a lawsuit dying before it's resolved is actually rather high.

smt88 2y ago
A 26yo dying is not "one of dozens," it's ~1/10,000 in the US (and likely much lower if we consider this guy's background and socioeconomic status).
- lolinder 2y ago
  If we're going to control for life situations, you have to calculate the suicide rate for people who are actively involved in a high stakes lawsuit against a former employer, which is going to be much higher than average. Then factor in non-suicide death rates as well. Then consider that there are apparently at least 12 like him in this lawsuit, and several other lawsuits pending. I'm not going to pretend to know what the exact odds are, but it's going to end up way higher than 1/10k.
ninetyninenine 2y ago
Right, so given the paradox, consider both possibilities rather then dismiss one like the parent is implying here.
- lolinder 2y ago
  I've considered the probabilities of both and find one to be far more likely.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    What a useless answer. I considered whether your answer was influenced by mental deficiency and bias and I considered one possibility to be more likely then the other.
- XorNot 2y ago
  Or you could just look at the facts of the case (currently: no foul play suspected). Are the cops in on it? The morgue? The local city? How high does this go? This isn't something which happened in isolation. This isn't "someone died". It's "someone died, and dozens of people are going to sign off that this obviously not a suicide was definitely a suicide". Like, is that possible? Can you fake a suicide and leave no evidence you did? If you can then how many suicides aren't actually suicides but homicides? How would we know? You're acting like it's a binary choice of probabilities but it isn't.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    Why did you have to make it go in the direction of conspiracy theory? Of course not. An assassination that looks like a suicide but isn’t is extremely possible. You don't have enough details from the article to make a call on this. > You're acting like it's a binary choice of probabilities but it isn't. It is a binary choice because that’s typically how the question is formulated in the process of the scientific method. Was it suicide or was it not a suicide? Binary. Once that question is analyzed you can dig deeper into was it an assassination or was it not? Essentially two binary questions are needed to cover every possibility here and to encompass suicide and assassination.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

FireBeyond 2y ago

I've listened to many comments here on some of these, saying it must be assassination "because the person insisted, "If I'm ever found dead, it's not suicide!"." This is sometimes despite extensive mental health history. Entirely possible. But in my career as a paramedic, I've (sadly) lost count of the number of mental health patients who have said, "Yeah, that was just a glitch, I'm not suicidal, not now/nor then." ... and gone on to commit or attempt suicide in extremely short order.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
Right. It could be but it could not be. Your paramedic knowledge makes sense and you’ve rightly stated that the assassination theory is a possibility.

SideQuark 2y ago

Computer the probability, don’t make claims without making a solid estimate. No, it’s not low. No need to put conspiracies before evidence, and certainly not by making claims you’ve not done no diligence on. And the article provides statements by professionals who routinely investigate homicides and suicides that they have no reason to believe anything other than suicide.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
Who the hell can compute a number from this? All probabilities on this case are made with a gut. Why don’t you tell me the probability instead of demanding one from me? You’re the one making a claim that professional judgment makes the probability so solid that it’s basically a suicide. So tell me about your computation. What gets me is the level of stupid you have to be to not even consider the other side. Like if a person literally tells you he’s not going to suicide and if he does it’s an assassination then he suicides and your first instinct is to only trust what the professionals say well… I can’t help you.
- SideQuark 2y ago
  > Who the hell can compute a number from this? Anyone who puts thought into the problem instead of jumping to conspiracies. Men in that age group commit suicide at rate X. Company Y has Z employees. Over time period T there is a K % chance of a suicide. Among all R companies from which a person like you finds conspiracies at every turn the odds a finding a death is S% . Not a single value in this chain is “made with a gut.” All are extremely defensible and determined scientifically, and if really care, you can obtain them all with errorbounds and 95% confidence intervals and the works. And you do basic math, and voila, your initial claim is nonsense. Or simply read about the birthday paradox, wonder if it applies, realize it does, stop jumping off the wagon. > why don’t you….. You’re the one pulling conspiracies out of thin air despite no evidence, and you made the claim. The onus is to defend your claim when asked, especially now that you’ve been given evidence for a solid argument against it. One not pulled out of thin air. > what gets me… No I see the other side. And for every time someone ignores the presented evidence, ignores basic statistics, ignores a good methodology when presented one, for each such case, I have seen zero cases out of thousands of such conspiracies where it came true. And I’ll 100% trust professionals over someone so innumerate as to be unable to do simple math, and get angry when it’s suggested super sneaky death wizards didn’t kill a minor player while ignoring dozens of more important players makes less sense than simple statistical likelihood. The latter is rarely correct. I’ll even amend to never correct.