This has probably been addressed millions of times, but just to give a response to why this is a misleading comic: If you were equally mocking of both Bayesian

This has probably been addressed millions of times, but just to give a response to why this is a misleading comic: If you were equally mocking of both Bayesian and Frequentist, the Bayesian would arguably come up with basically the same conclusion. In this scenario where the Frequentist ignores previous data based on human history and our understanding of the lifecycle of the sun based on physics, the Bayesian should do the same if we are fair. Then his prior distribution would likely be 50% belief that the sun would explode (Why favor either outcome? Thus the prior distribution is split down the middle between both outcomes.). With the new information given from the detector, his posterior would be 35/36 probability that the sun has exploded. Maybe the Bayesian approach provides a more explicit way of incorporating previous information, and without that, it's cause for some misuse with a Frequentist approach, but that doesn't mean Frequentists need be fundamentally ignorant in their approach. The comic's good for a laugh. Just don't take it too seriously as a criticism.