Yes, this comment makes no sense. Your selection of a 100 sided dice was obviously just a method to discuss probability. But then you randomly jump to a statement about having 100 possible outcomes? This doesn't have anything to do with the original topic at hand.

I downvoted your comment because the argument you are attempting to make is incoherent. I'm sure that you understand what you are trying to say, but as written your comment does a poor job of expressing that point of view.

> But this is more like a procedure that will let you guess the number that will land > 50% of the time.

If have a procedure for guessing the number rolled on a 100 sided die, you are choosing between 100 different possible guesses. That is nothing like a dog guessing if a person has, or does have drugs (two possible guesses). Attempting to compare the accuracy rates between those two cases is major statistical error.

I thought this difference would be obvious to most readers of HN and was thus surprised to see such a simple statistical error being made. I did not think that verbose explanation would be needed once the error was pointed out.