= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Oscar_Cunningham comments on Open Thread, September 15-30, 2012 - 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 (206)
The article doesn't actually contain any data saying that fingerprints are reliable. If I had to guess, I'd say that a (non-partial) fingerprint match had an odds ratio of around 10^7, a hefty 22 bits of info. Is there any data to contradict that? Or is this just the "but there's still a chance, right?" fallacy?