Hi Albert
Marko Kovic
1

Hi Marko,

first off if i wasn’t initially skeptical about every new writer on the internet i would probably be living in a cave somewhere waiting for the aliens to come drag me away. You should always assume you have to earn your readers trust.

Secondly i understand i thought it was an interesting article and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with using logic to predict the likely hood of an outcome. The problem is when you roughly assign values to that logic. Any values you ever give have to be justified. Saying 0.9 is a high probability is like saying ‘cars are fast’, it entirely depends on the context, 90%(0.9 probability) might be an acceptable rate of failure for a rocket but it is not for a plane.

To more fully illustrate this lets swap out your seven steps for steps relating to the likelihood that i get to work today without getting run over:

• wake up and get out of bed
• dont be sick
• remember how to get to work
• dont cross the road when a car is coming
• car drivers pay attention and dont run me over on the side walk
• no mechanical malfunction with the cars that causes an accident
• no other walker having an accident that pushes me into the road

Assigning a 90% probability to each of those steps will give me 47.8% likelihood that i wont get run over each and every day.

Clearly this is a ridiculous example but it serves to prove the point that a 90% probaility is not intrinsically high, if i had a 10% chance of forgetting where i worked i dont think i would have the problem of being employed for long.

Just initially looking at your points 1,2,3,5 and 6 a 90% probaility of those points being true intuitively feels low but again without validating my assumptions my intuition is worthless.

If you put numbers in your article it stops being an opinion piece and starts becoming factual in which case you have to be able to backup every single number.

Outside of that i thought it was an interesting article.