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!
> "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.