Bayesianism has a regress/foundations problem. Yudkowsky acknowledges that. Popperism doesn't. So Popperism is better in a pretty straightforward way.

Any system with axioms can be infinitely regressed or rendered circular if you demand that it justify the axioms. Critical Rationalism has axioms, and can be infinitely regressed.

You were upvoted in the beginning for pointing out gaps in scholarship and raising ideas not in common circulation here. You yourself, however, have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of Bayesianism, and have attracted frustration with your own lack of scholarship and confused arguments, along with failure to provide good reasons for us to be interested in the prospect of doing this large amount of reading you insist is necessary to properly understand Popper. If doing this reading were worthwhile, we would expect you to be able to give a better demonstration of why.