News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case. Parent comment

Re:U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case by topmonk on Tuesday June 26, 2018 @11:52AM (#17401572)
His main point was we don't have enough data for the 'very typically' label. To prove this, you need some sort of data.

Instead lostcolony was asking for evidence that this is not the case, implying that we should accept 'very typically' with no evidence, and expect proof of absence to change our minds.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court to hear civil forfeiture case by lostcolony on Thursday June 28, 2018 @11:29AM (#17417675)
Actually, no, I wasn't asking for evidence that this was not the case. I was asking for why we should treat djrogers' personal experience as evidence for why it isn't 'very typical'. Does his personal experience even match the criteria smrtinsert implied? And even if it does, why should we consider it, giving how few data points it is, of such poor sampling quality (given a single subject).

I was asserting nothing about how typical seizure is or isn't, just how poor djrogers' supplied anecdotal data was.

[ Parent | on HN ]