> If you argue that an obvious bug is evidence of NSA involvement, then you must also believe a subtle bug would be evidence against NSA involvement. You can't

> If you argue that an obvious bug is evidence of NSA involvement, then you must also believe a subtle bug would be evidence against NSA involvement. You can't have it both ways. Thanks for taking the argument to a mathematical plane. My reasoning was the following: P(is-involved) = P(is-involved|subtle)P(subtle) + P(is-involved|subtle)P(~subtle) Now, we know that 0 < P(is-involved) < 1. Assuming that there have been past instances of their involvement in both subtle and unsubtle bugs, I think my argument where I can attach a probability of their involvement in both the case was fair. Or do you think I missed something. Note: I think I got it. Essentially your point is that given that I am using the unsubtle-ty of the bug to argue both ways, implies that this variable provides us no useful information and can be removed from the discussion. Thanks for pointing out my muddy reasoning.