undefined | Better HN

0 pointsninetyninenine1y ago0 comments

Bro where are you going to find statistics on the rate of actual suicides for someone who makes the claim that if they die it’s not a suicide? There are so many situations where there’s just no data or experimental evidence is impossible to ascertain and you have to use your gut. Where’s experimental evidence that the ground will still exist when you jump off the bed every morning? Use your gut. Tired of this data driven nonsense as if the only way to make any decision in this universe is to use numerical data. If you had basic statistical knowledge you’d know statistics is useless for this situation.

Complete bs. Use your common sense.

> You’re the one pulling conspiracies out of thin air despite no evidence, and you made the claim.

What claim? All I said is consider both possibilities because given the situation both are likely. You’re the one making the claim that a guy who told everyone if he died it wasn’t a suicide is totally and completely and utterly a suicide. And you make this claim based off of way to general experimental evidence collected for only a general situation. You’re the type of genius who if your friend died you’d just assume it was a car accident because that’s the most likely we to die. No need to investigate anything. Even if your friend was like if I die in the next couple days I was murdered you’d insist that it’s a car accident. Look at you and your data driven genius.

0 comments

SideQuark1y ago

You claimed: " 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 unable to even estimate "the low probability", you're unable to try even though it's not hard to get good estimates, so there is zero chance you understand how close an event is to happening.

Every single suicide "potentially posses information...", so the probability is not quite low. It's 100%. Do you know what "potentially" means? It's complete conspiratorial nonsense.

Since you're unable to understand math: there's around 50,000 suicides a year in the US. How many murders do you think are committed by a company killing some coverup a year? Less than a dozen (and that's likely way too high)? That coupled with your hand wavy "potential" makes the odds of a suicide orders of magnitude higher than murder, especially since if the company wanted to murder people there's plenty that would be higher on the hit list, yet they all are not dead. Facts > conspiracy.

Aww, screw it. It's not even worth trying to walk you through how to compute any odds when you're dead set on nonsense....

ninetyninenineOP1y ago

Let me spell it out for you. The likelihood that When someone dies that it's from murder is less than 1%.

From your logic, that means because the likelihood is less than 1%, murder should never be investigated.

Police investigations, forensic science, DNA matching, murder trials, Detectives are all rendered redundant by statistics.

You can compute this too. ANd you can use your incredible logic here: Facts > murder.

You need to see why that situation above doesn't make sense. Once you do, you'll realize that the same exact logic that makes that situation make no sense is the EXACT same logic you're using to "compute" your new conclusion.

You need to realize there ARE additional facts here that render quantitative analysis impossible to ascertain and hand waving is the ONLY way forward. That is unless you want to actually go out there and gather the data.

You know logic, deduction and induction are alternative forms of analysis that can be done outside of science right? You should employ the former to know when the later is impossible.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse