Rick Beato has a video about people losing their absolute pitch with age (it seems to happen to everyone eventually). There are a lot of anecdata by people who have experienced this both in the video and in the comments.

Some report that after experiencing a shift in their absolute pitch, all music sounds wrong. Some of them adapted somehow (it's unclear to me how much development of relative abilities was involved) and others report not having noticed that their absolute pitch has shifted. Some report that only after they've lost their absolute pitch completely, they were able to develop certain relative pitch abilities.

Overall, people's reported experiences in the comments vary a lot. I wouldn't draw strong conclusions from them. In any case, I find it fascinating to read about these perceptions.

I am quite skeptical that hearing like a person with absolute pitch can be learned because it seems to be somewhat incompatible with relative pitch.

People with absolute pitch report that if a piece of music is played with a slightly lower or higher pitch, it sounds out of tune. If this feeling stays throughout the piece this means that the person doesn't hear relatively. So even if a relative pitch person would learn to name played notes absolutely, I don't think the hearing experience would be the same.

So I think you can't have both absolute pitch and relative pitch in the full sense. (I do think that you can improve at naming played notes, singing notes correctly without a reference note from outside your body, etc.)

Thanks for this pointer. I might check it out when their website is up again.

Many characteristics have been proposed as significant, for example:

• It's better if fingers have less traveling to do.
• It's better if consecutive taps are done with different fingers or, better yet, different hands.
• It's better if common keys are near the fingers' natural resting places.
• It's better to avoid stretching and overusing the pinky finger, which is the weakest of the five.

Just an anecdotal experience: I, too, have wrist problems. I have tried touch typing with 10 fingers a couple of times and my problems got worse each time. My experience agrees with the point about the pinky above but many consecutive taps with non-pinky fingers on the same hand also make my wrist problems worse. If traveling less means more of those, I prefer traveling more. (But consecutive taps on different hands are good for me.)

Since many consecutive taps with different fingers on the same hand seem to part of the idea behind all keyboard layouts, I expect the costs of switching from the standard layout to an idiosyncratic one to outweigh the benefits.

For now, I have given up on using all 10 fingers. My current typing system is a 3+1 finger system with a little bit of hawking. I'd like to be able to touch type perfectly but this seems to be quite hard without using 10 fingers. I don't feel very limited by my typing speed, though.

You might be also be interested in "General Bayesian Theories and the Emergence of the Exclusivity Principle" by Chiribella et al. which claims that quantum theory is the most general theory which satisfies Bayesian consistency conditions.

By now, there are actually quite a few attempts to reconstruct quantum theory from more "reasonable" axioms besides Hardy's. You can track the refrences in the paper above to find some more of them.

As you learn more about most systems, the likelihood ratio should likely go down for each additional point of evidence.

I'd be interested to see the assumptions which go into this. As Stuart has pointed out, it's  got to do with how correlated the evidence is. And for fat-tailed distributions we probably should expect to be surprised at a constant rate.

Note you can still get massive updates if B' is pretty independent of B. So if someone brings in camera footage of the crime, that has no connection with the previous witness's trustworthiness, and can throw the odds strongly in one direction or another (in equation, independence means that P(B'|H,B)/P(B'|¬H,B) = P(B'|H)/P(B'|¬H)).

Thanks, I think this is the crucial point for me. I was implicitly operating under the assumption that the evidence is uncorrelated which is of course not warranted in most cases.

So if we have already updated on a lot of evidence, it is often reasonable to expect that part of what future evidence can tell us is already included in these updates. I think I wouldn't say that the likelihood ratio is independent of the prior anymore. In most cases, they have a common dependency on past evidence.

From the article:

At this point, I think I am somewhat below Nate Silver’s 60% odds that the virus escaped from the lab, and put myself at about 40%, but I haven’t looked carefully and this probability is weakly held.

Quite off-topic: what does it mean from a Bayesian perspective to hold a probability weakly vs. confidently? Likelihood ratios for updating are independent of the prior so a weakly-held probability should update exactly as a confidently-held one. Is there a way to quantifiy the "strongness" with which one holds a probability?

Thanks for your answer. Part of the problem might have been that I wasn't that proficient with vim. When I reconfigured the clashing key bindings of the IDE I sometimes unknowingly overwrote a vim command which turned out to be useful later on. So I had to reconfigure numerous times which annoyed me so much that I abandoned the approach at the time.