News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf] by wyager on Friday December 30, 2016 @01:09PM (#13285936)
> Please stop accusing people of being 100% confident.

To quote you:

> No. I believe the official version

> What is the alternate hypothesis that's "marginally less likely"?

That Russia didn't hack the DNC. I think it's actually marginally more likely than that Russia didn't hack the DNC than that they did, but I was humoring you.

Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf] by mundo on Friday December 30, 2016 @01:33PM (#13286126)
I repeat:

> "Why are US intelligence agencies saying they have proof that Russia hacked the DNC?" The base hypothesis is "Because they do." The alternate hypothesis is what you're supplying.

Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf] by wyager on Saturday December 31, 2016 @01:43AM (#13289875)
What do you mean by "base hypothesis" or "alternate hypothesis"? Those aren't real terms in hypothesis testing. I think you might want to do some reading on Bayesian reasoning, and its relationship to Occam's razor.
Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf] by mundo on Saturday December 31, 2016 @11:31AM (#13291672)
Those are not highfalutin technical terms, just casual everyday language. Stop waffling and tell me what this theory is that I'm a brainwashed sheep for not believing!