Yes, but you also should update on incidents not leading to a catastrophe. If Nuño and I scratched math correctly, you should feel 1+1n2+4n+3 times more doomed, where n is the number of incidents. If it’s the 8th accident, you should only feel like only ~1% more doomed.
(That comes from modeling incidents and catastrophe|incidents as two different beta distributions, and updating upwards on the prevalence of incidents, and a bit downwards on the prevalence of catastrophes given an incidence. The update ends up such that the overall chance of catastrophes also rises, by the factor that Misha mentioned.)
Makes sense. I was thinking for a minute that it meant something like the more near misses, the lower the overall chance of catastrophe. That would be weird, but not impossible I guess.
Meanwhile, in South Asia… India accidentally fires missile into Pakistan. A reminder that the threat from accidents is still all too apparent.
Yes, but you also should update on incidents not leading to a catastrophe. If Nuño and I scratched math correctly, you should feel 1+1n2+4n+3 times more doomed, where n is the number of incidents. If it’s the 8th accident, you should only feel like only ~1% more doomed.
(That comes from modeling incidents and catastrophe|incidents as two different beta distributions, and updating upwards on the prevalence of incidents, and a bit downwards on the prevalence of catastrophes given an incidence. The update ends up such that the overall chance of catastrophes also rises, by the factor that Misha mentioned.)
Makes sense. I was thinking for a minute that it meant something like the more near misses, the lower the overall chance of catastrophe. That would be weird, but not impossible I guess.