When I was younger...
The difference would be that I'm doing it more for myself than for those out there, because I don't expect my youtube video to get out much.
I also don't know if I'll get some attention, I'm doing that entirely for myself: to leave a legacy, to look back and say that I too did something to raise ...(read more)
Honestly, I'm not sure how explaining Bayesian thinking will help people with understanding media claims.
Sometimes important news are based entirely on the availability bias or the base rate fallacy: knowing them is important to cultivate a critical view of media. To understanding why they are wron...(read more)
These are all excellent tips, thank you!
A much, much easier think that still works is P(sunrise) = 1, which I expect is what ancient astronomers felt about.
That entirely depends on your cosmological model, and in all cosmological models I know, the sun is a definite and fixed object, so usually P(sunrise)=1−P(apocalypse)
From what I've understood of the white paper, there's no transaction fee because, instead of rewarding active nodes like in the blockchain, the Tangle punishes inactive nodes. So when a node performes few transactions, other nodes tends to disconnect from it and in the long run an inactive node will...(read more)
With the magic of probability theory, you can convert one into the other. By the way, you yourself should search for evidence that you're wrong, as any honest intellectual would do.
This might be a minor or a major nitpick, depending on your point of view: Laplace rule works only if the repeated trials are thought to be independent of one another. That is why you cannot use it to predict sunrise: even without accurate cosmological model, it's quite clear that the ball of fire r...(read more)
This is a standard prediction since the unconscious was theorized more than a century ago, so unfortunately it's not good evidence that the model is correct. Unfortunately, if what you've written is the only things that the list has to say, then I would say that no, this is not worth pursuing.
In a vein similar to Erfeyah's comment, I think that your model needs to be developed much more. For example, what predictions does it make that are notably different from other psychological models? It's just an explanation that feels too "overfitted".