|
sit on my Facebook posted:Lotta folks in this thread apparently don't know what makes an rear end out of u and me Posting? Edit: gah awful snipe 
Thaddius the Large fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Jan 9, 2020 |
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
Party of Personal
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:By this reasoning TWA 800 must have been shot down by a missile it's the only explanation because accidents are so rare. In other words, you don't know how to apply statistical reasoning. TWA 800 didn't happen in country that was firing missiles at a neighboring country while under threat of major retaliatory air strikes. All anyone is saying is that the circumstances make it vastly more likely that this was a shootdown incident than a mechanical failure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
I actually think I was being generous when I said it was one in a million chance of mechanical failure. Looking at the actual numbers now it's more on the order of one in a hundred million to one in a billion. Even the Concorde crash, which had a tire explosion that subsequently punctured and ignited a fuel tank, did not explode in midair. It crashed because the fire took out one of the engines and they lost control of the aircraft. It's really hard to make an aircraft explode from just mechanical failure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
Even with all that said there is nothing wrong with not jumping in with a firm opinion until a couple of days have passed and more information is available.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:All anyone is saying is that the circumstances make it vastly more likely that this was a shootdown incident than a mechanical failure. No he most specifically is not saying that Seph posted:If I was presented with "he's guilty unless this one in a million thing happened" I would probably find them guilty tbh He said he would convict them right now without any evidence whatsoever other than "well what are the odds hmmmmm"
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
also skepticism about the "mechanical failure is highly unlikely" argument is somewhat warranted considering that initial reporting of the incident had to clarify that the airframe in question is not the sister model 737 which is grounded worldwide for wanting to nosedive against pilot orders
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
Can we really be sure all those 737s weren't sabotaged by Iran though, it's so rare for planes to nosedive on their own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:By this reasoning TWA 800 must have been shot down by a missile it's the only explanation because accidents are so rare. In other words, you don't know how to apply statistical reasoning. It's not the same because TWA 800 did not explode over a country that was on high alert and expecting retaliation forna recent missile strike. Put another way, if the Ukrainian flight had crashed one week earlier I would not be saying it was obviously shot down. I would agree the most likely scenario is a mechanical failure. But when there is relevant additional information the likelihood of events changes. I'd recommend reading about Bayes Theorem if you're interested in the probability theory behind it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:I mean I obviously haven't seen a Tor's operator console but if I had to hazard a guess it was probably designed with the usability and human factors considerations of a cactus dildo which, combined with lack of sleep, high stress, and superiors yelling at you it would be a lot easier than you think to make a mistake like this and it's a miracle it doesn't happen more often. KAL 007 isn't really comparable. Even if you ignore all the command/political and equipment failures you were still looking at an aircraft 500+ miles off it's flight plan flying somewhat erratically in and out of the edge of a designated off-limits air defense zone whose defenders had repeatedly been punished for failing to down American RC135s that are essentially Boeing airliners made for the military. I mean there might be some really crazy stuff that comes out that paints us a picture of a perfect storm of innocent gently caress-ups but I can't even think of a scenario that makes this not orders of magnitude more of a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
Seph posted:Guys it was incredibly obvious that it was shot down when the alternative explanation was a literal one in a million mechanical failure taking it down. Don't let your biases cloud your judgment on this one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:also skepticism about the "mechanical failure is highly unlikely" argument is somewhat warranted considering that initial reporting of the incident had to clarify that the airframe in question is not the sister model 737 which is grounded worldwide for wanting to nosedive against pilot orders https://twitter.com/krisvancleave/status/1215309192086675459?s=19 Assuming those satellite blips can be corroborated that does seem pretty conclusive towards "accidental missile launch".
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:29
|
|
|
Hannity said on his show that 6 B-52 bombers were headed for Iran's oil refineries 90 minutes before the plane was shot down. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDhMuP9dGBY
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:29
|
|
|
Seph posted:It's not the same because TWA 800 did not explode over a country that was on high alert and expecting retaliation forna recent missile strike. Terrorists have blown up more planes than have blown up in midair so yes it is the same. In fact it was originally suspected to be terrorism, until an investigation determined that the cause was an electrical failure that no one had anticipated and that regulations were instituted afterwards to prevent. We're not going to know how likely an accident was until there's an investigation into the causes, until then it makes zero sense to say that since accidents are unlikely it must be an attack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
Reik posted:Hannity said on his show that 6 B-52 bombers were headed for Iran's oil refineries 90 minutes before the plane was shot down. alright, which one of you is Sean Hannity
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
We probably shot the drat plane down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:He said he would convict them right now without any evidence whatsoever other than "well what are the odds hmmmmm" That's literally what DNA tests are saying and they get convictions all the time. Essentially they conclude "The odds of this strand of DNA matching this strand while not being from the same person are 1 in [really big number]" I'm applying the same logic to this situation. If I have one scenario that is extremely unlikely (mechanical failure leading to midair explosion) it's safe to rule that out. If ruling that out leaves me with only one conclusion (Iran shot it down) then I feel pretty good about that conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
It's all a prank, the plane's hiding in a barn
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
The US doesn’t have heroes, but we do have Sully 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
There was no plane. MINDFREAK!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:We're not going to know how likely an accident was until there's an investigation into the causes, until then it makes zero sense to say that since accidents are unlikely it must be an attack. However, it does make a ton of sense to say that the circumstances of flying in Iran at that specific time massively increased the chances of an aircraft being brought down by a spooked air defense crew, when that chance would not even be considered at any time previous. That’s why the other poster gently told you to look up the idea of conditional probability after you went for some weird statistics burn. It’s still speculation until a proper investigation is conducted but there is nothing logically wrong with the suspicions people are expressing. Also, nobody is saying that Iran would be unique in doing something like this or that it should invite some punitive action.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:There was no plane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
Seph posted:That's literally what DNA tests are saying and they get convictions all the time. lmao that you don't realize what an incredible self-own this is those tests produce false convictions all the time. DNA is pretty reliable for exonerating people who didn't do it, but simply comparing DNA to a database of people produces false positives. If there is zero evidence to link someone to a crime other than a DNA match, it's way more likely that you have a false positive than that you have the perp. This is just simple Bayesian probability. E: the right way to use DNA tests is to confirm a suspect that you already have in custody which you've linked to the crime through other evidence VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Jan 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
Seph posted:That's literally what DNA tests are saying and they get convictions all the time. Essentially they conclude "The odds of this strand of DNA matching this strand while not being from the same person are 1 in [really big number]" Sure there are no wrongful convictions based on DNA evidence  https://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/ edit: This wasn't the thing I thought it was. It does show DNA can exonerate, but it says nothing about convictions based on DNA evidence. logger fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Jan 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Terrorists have blown up more planes than have blown up in midair so yes it is the same. In fact it was originally suspected to be terrorism, until an investigation determined that the cause was an electrical failure that no one had anticipated and that regulations were instituted afterwards to prevent. This isn't how conditional probability works at all Even if you ignore conditional probability (which you shouldn't because it changes the answer by multiple orders of magnitude) going by the last 40 years of aviation the probability of it being a mechanical failure is something like 2-3%
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
Shooting down your own planes is a good way to out-crazy Trump, if you really think about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
Seph posted:That's literally what DNA tests are saying and they get convictions all the time. Essentially they conclude "The odds of this strand of DNA matching this strand while not being from the same person are 1 in [really big number]" pretty much all of that forensic poo poo has been debunked heavily dude. hair, dna, blood spatter, etc. It's all loving garbage pseudoscience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:37
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:There was no plane. As far as conspiracies go, I prefer "Hillary Clinton did it" more. I don't care to see if this is a real conspiracy theory but I'm pretty sure it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
Madkal posted:As far as conspiracies go, I prefer "Hillary Clinton did it" more. I don't care to see if this is a real conspiracy theory but I'm pretty sure it is. 174 souls on their way to testify against hillary clinton in the hague... snuffed out in an instant...
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
Also put this in the CanPOL thread, here's the vid supposedly showing the shooting down of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752: https://twitter.com/livi_kivi/status/1215346100837765121 You can see something rapidly approach and detonate with a bright flash of a shrapnel cone (TOR M1 SAM system uses a High Explosive Fragmentation warhead), which ignites whatever it hit, which then starts to fall from the sky Usually it's extremely unlikely anyone would have their phone at the ready to spot this, but this is the same country that moments before launched over a dozen long-range missiles, so it makes sense people would be watching the sky more. If this is real, as a Canadian I really, really hope we don't get involved in this mess any more than getting legal compensation to the families.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
Madkal posted:As far as conspiracies go, I prefer "Hillary Clinton did it" more. I don't care to see if this is a real conspiracy theory but I'm pretty sure it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
Perhaps the plane did suffer a mechanical failure, and the missile ripping open its fuselage was merely a contributing factor?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:You can see something rapidly approach and detonate with a bright flash of a shrapnel cone you can? looks like "a plane explodes when it hits the ground" to me
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:lmao that you don't realize what an incredible self-own this is I'm sorry that my DNA analogy didnt work perfectly. Do you want to address my main point or are you just going to gloat that I made a mistake when trying to explain statistics to you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:42
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This isn't how conditional probability works If this is a typical flight and there wasn't anything abnormal in the maintenance records, or the instrument readings, etc, then the possibility of an accident is remote sure. But you don't know that everything was typical before there's been an investigation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
Need the sweaty cartoon guy meme with a choice between "I don't trust what the USA says" and "I don't trust what Iran says". Is there a UN/ Hans Blix type agency/dude to inspect air crashes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:lmao that you don't realize what an incredible self-own this is That's not a self-own, the point of the comparison was the math concept, not the state of forensic science. The problem with forensics is that poor science has given us inaccurate probabilities and/or the conditional is a false positive, not that the concept of confidence intervals is bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's not a self-own, the point of the comparison was the math concept, not the state of forensic science. The problem with forensics is that poor science has given us inaccurate probabilities and/or the conditional is a false positive, not that the concept of confidence intervals is bad. No, the problem was the math concept. If you have zero evidence linking a suspect other than a DNA match, it's more likely you have a false positive than that you found the guy who did it. Which is exactly the same mistake this guy is making here. (E: well not exactly the same but similar) Seph posted:I'm sorry that my DNA analogy didnt work perfectly. Do you want to address my main point or are you just going to gloat that I made a mistake when trying to explain statistics to you? lmao the analogy doesn't work because you don't understand the statistics you're trying to use
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
Remember that lab in North Carolina that was just making up forensics data for like a decade?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You're the one ignoring conditional probability and jumping to conclusions though. Again, that's not how conditional probability works, even remotely. The conditional includes those factors being unknown.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2020 20:49
|
|