= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ArisKatsaris comments on Link: "A Bayesian Take on Julian Assange" - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (12)
The above equation seems very wrong. A better one would be to compare:
Wikileaks is probably more important, however if you choose to ignore the court case, your probable level of ignorance about it is much higher.
Given that I am not remotely interested in a single crime that may or may not have taken place between two people who I will never meet (and neither should anyone else be, unless they avidly follow all rape stories that take place anywhere in the world), I would say that the comparison still comes out strongly in favour of ignoring the case and focusing on Wikileaks.
The interesting thing is not the crime, but the obvious overreaction to it by the Swedish prosecution (by comparison with their reaction to many similar allegations that come up regarding other people). It's clear that this is not the typical modus operandi. What is unclear is whether it's one person chasing a high profile case for fame or political gain, or whether it's a larger movement to attempt to discredit wikileaks.
I agree with that fully. All I was saying is that I have no real desire to learn whether he actually committed the rape (as has been pointed, the reaction is interesting either way), since I am not a perfect rationalist and learning this may well contaminate my beliefs about Wikileaks in general