did someone in power get a note saying “this is likely to happen and here’s how to prevent it”, and it get burried.
That’s just how reality works.
If you followed up and dealt with every low probability event (and most events of interest are low probability and most every low probability event would get a note about it in a large, properly functional government), first, it would be impossible, and second, you’d end up doing more harm then good.
It shows up best in the medical field because who doesn’t want to catch a disease earlier? Right? And, no matter who pays for it, there is money in extra medical treatment (despite the harm that unnecessary medical treatment causes, and the fact that if you underscreen, you also cause problems, and those are more likely to embarrass you).
The jist is when you screen (like a mammogram or some political quant writing a note about their thoughts), there is some probability that the information is wrong.
A false positive is when you find that event/question/prediction/whatever A is true, but it is not in fact.
Then there’s false negative, when you find that A is false, but it is not. (Additionally, true positive and true negative)
When you screen for “rare” events (which includes a lot of things that we might not think of as rare, or rare enough, like breast cancer or potential criminals), a vast majority of the people that screen positive will be false positive. The lower probability the event, the higher the false positive rate. It doesn’t really matter much to the math what the false negative rate is.
This is extremely counter intuitive to people, even when you’ve been shown the extremely simple math, it takes a while to internalize.
This is just a trivial example of Baye’s rule.
It’s also why you’ll never be able to treat mass shootings as a mental health issue or predict crimes unless you’re willing to put a lot of innocent people in jail.
Right, but the point is, it may very well be that they were difficult to catch without going into harm on the other side (IE in say 9/11’s case having the bar set so high that they’d have grounded air traffic for 15 false positives before actually stopping the attack). Likewise say JFK or MLK’s assassinations, also probably infeasible, having to widen perimeter or advance security on quite a large distance from where they were traveling and speaking.
In epstiens case though, it seems like a high profile national news level criminal like himself. could have very easily been sent to a much better guarded prison, not taken off suicide watch etc… IE it seems like all the red flags were there that he would have killed himself if he could… and he was left in a situation where doing so was not difficult, and the cost of ensuring he didn’t kill himself would have been pretty low. It’s one dude that’s expected to stay in captivity, on a case that the whole world was watching. Not really that infeasible to have a 24/7 rotation that has one person dedicated to him at all times.
You have a “plausible” explanation of which there isn’t really any good evidence, and where the lack of evidence is a condition for the explanation.
In any case, you’re assuming that a “little” decision like supervising Epstein one on one was was made by an exceptional person (and presumably as intelligent as yourself), but the reality is that anyone accomplishing big things needs to delegate almost all of their work.
The people operating there were not viewing this event as too special. Most people who are that forward thinking are not in that position.
To me I think majority of conspiracy murder… still may have merit, without actually lifting a finger.
IMO I don’t think the real question is “did the government establish a hit on JFK, MLK, The twin towers etc…”.
but rather, did someone in power get a note saying “this is likely to happen and here’s how to prevent it”, and it get burried.
That’s just how reality works.
If you followed up and dealt with every low probability event (and most events of interest are low probability and most every low probability event would get a note about it in a large, properly functional government), first, it would be impossible, and second, you’d end up doing more harm then good.
Here’s a good explanation.
It shows up best in the medical field because who doesn’t want to catch a disease earlier? Right? And, no matter who pays for it, there is money in extra medical treatment (despite the harm that unnecessary medical treatment causes, and the fact that if you underscreen, you also cause problems, and those are more likely to embarrass you).
The jist is when you screen (like a mammogram or some political quant writing a note about their thoughts), there is some probability that the information is wrong.
A false positive is when you find that event/question/prediction/whatever A is true, but it is not in fact.
Then there’s false negative, when you find that A is false, but it is not. (Additionally, true positive and true negative)
When you screen for “rare” events (which includes a lot of things that we might not think of as rare, or rare enough, like breast cancer or potential criminals), a vast majority of the people that screen positive will be false positive. The lower probability the event, the higher the false positive rate. It doesn’t really matter much to the math what the false negative rate is.
This is extremely counter intuitive to people, even when you’ve been shown the extremely simple math, it takes a while to internalize.
This is just a trivial example of Baye’s rule.
It’s also why you’ll never be able to treat mass shootings as a mental health issue or predict crimes unless you’re willing to put a lot of innocent people in jail.
deleted by creator
Right, but the point is, it may very well be that they were difficult to catch without going into harm on the other side (IE in say 9/11’s case having the bar set so high that they’d have grounded air traffic for 15 false positives before actually stopping the attack). Likewise say JFK or MLK’s assassinations, also probably infeasible, having to widen perimeter or advance security on quite a large distance from where they were traveling and speaking.
In epstiens case though, it seems like a high profile national news level criminal like himself. could have very easily been sent to a much better guarded prison, not taken off suicide watch etc… IE it seems like all the red flags were there that he would have killed himself if he could… and he was left in a situation where doing so was not difficult, and the cost of ensuring he didn’t kill himself would have been pretty low. It’s one dude that’s expected to stay in captivity, on a case that the whole world was watching. Not really that infeasible to have a 24/7 rotation that has one person dedicated to him at all times.
That’s conspiratorial thinking.
You have a “plausible” explanation of which there isn’t really any good evidence, and where the lack of evidence is a condition for the explanation.
In any case, you’re assuming that a “little” decision like supervising Epstein one on one was was made by an exceptional person (and presumably as intelligent as yourself), but the reality is that anyone accomplishing big things needs to delegate almost all of their work.
The people operating there were not viewing this event as too special. Most people who are that forward thinking are not in that position.