One time, someone asked me if I was evil. I said “no”. Afterward, they probably didn’t believe I wasn’t evil. I’m guessing they wouldn’t have happily accepted a bet at 20:1 odds that I don’t deliberately hurt people.
What would you expect a person who’s evil to answer? I wouldn’t expect them to answer “yes” but “no” is the most likely answer that I would expect an evil person to give.
Saying “no” means that you refuse to give any evidence that you aren’t evil when exposed to the question, which seems to me a tiny bit more likely for someone who doesn’t really have that evidence.
Theoretically, a trading method that gets over 50% of its trades right will be profitable.
That’s not true. Different trades have a different impact. A trading strategy that gets 90% of it’s trades right but makes one trade that bankrupts the whole company is not a profitable strategy.
Seeing an Onion headline say “X did Y” is teeny evidence that X didn’t Y.
I think that’s doubtful. Most Onion headline are about events where there’s a strong prior against the event happening.
Sometimes a true statement still makes for a good ironic article. One of the greatest articles by the German equivalent of the Onion, Der Postillon, was an article about how politicians want to change processes around rescuing migrant ships because too much of them had migrants drown in a short time frame. Being very explicit about the game theoretic position where the Western politician are okay with a certain amount of ships drowning isn’t something you would have read in normal news sources but which is both true and funny.
I don’t understand what you’re getting at with your response to the question of personal evil.
You’re right about trading.
Seeing an Onion headline say “X did Y” is teeny evidence that X didn’t Y.
...
I think that’s doubtful.
In which direction? Do you mean to say that it’s no evidence, or it’s strong evidence? You speak of “a strong prior against the event”, but the strength of the prior doesn’t have any necessary relation to the strength of the evidence.
What would you expect a person who’s evil to answer? I wouldn’t expect them to answer “yes” but “no” is the most likely answer that I would expect an evil person to give.
Saying “no” means that you refuse to give any evidence that you aren’t evil when exposed to the question, which seems to me a tiny bit more likely for someone who doesn’t really have that evidence.
That’s not true. Different trades have a different impact. A trading strategy that gets 90% of it’s trades right but makes one trade that bankrupts the whole company is not a profitable strategy.
I think that’s doubtful. Most Onion headline are about events where there’s a strong prior against the event happening.
Sometimes a true statement still makes for a good ironic article. One of the greatest articles by the German equivalent of the Onion, Der Postillon, was an article about how politicians want to change processes around rescuing migrant ships because too much of them had migrants drown in a short time frame. Being very explicit about the game theoretic position where the Western politician are okay with a certain amount of ships drowning isn’t something you would have read in normal news sources but which is both true and funny.
I don’t understand what you’re getting at with your response to the question of personal evil.
You’re right about trading.
In which direction? Do you mean to say that it’s no evidence, or it’s strong evidence? You speak of “a strong prior against the event”, but the strength of the prior doesn’t have any necessary relation to the strength of the evidence.