Who the hell can compute a number from this? All probabilities on this case are made with a gut.

Why don’t you tell me the probability instead of demanding one from me? You’re the one making a claim that professional judgment makes the probability so solid that it’s basically a suicide. So tell me about your computation.

What gets me is the level of stupid you have to be to not even consider the other side. Like if a person literally tells you he’s not going to suicide and if he does it’s an assassination then he suicides and your first instinct is to only trust what the professionals say well… I can’t help you.

> Who the hell can compute a number from this?

Anyone who puts thought into the problem instead of jumping to conspiracies.

Men in that age group commit suicide at rate X. Company Y has Z employees. Over time period T there is a K % chance of a suicide. Among all R companies from which a person like you finds conspiracies at every turn the odds a finding a death is S% . Not a single value in this chain is “made with a gut.” All are extremely defensible and determined scientifically, and if really care, you can obtain them all with errorbounds and 95% confidence intervals and the works.

And you do basic math, and voila, your initial claim is nonsense.

Or simply read about the birthday paradox, wonder if it applies, realize it does, stop jumping off the wagon.

> why don’t you…..

You’re the one pulling conspiracies out of thin air despite no evidence, and you made the claim. The onus is to defend your claim when asked, especially now that you’ve been given evidence for a solid argument against it. One not pulled out of thin air.

> what gets me…

No I see the other side. And for every time someone ignores the presented evidence, ignores basic statistics, ignores a good methodology when presented one, for each such case, I have seen zero cases out of thousands of such conspiracies where it came true.

And I’ll 100% trust professionals over someone so innumerate as to be unable to do simple math, and get angry when it’s suggested super sneaky death wizards didn’t kill a minor player while ignoring dozens of more important players makes less sense than simple statistical likelihood.

The latter is rarely correct. I’ll even amend to never correct.

Bro where are you going to find statistics on the rate of actual suicides for someone who makes the claim that if they die it’s not a suicide? There are so many situations where there’s just no data or experimental evidence is impossible to ascertain and you have to use your gut. Where’s experimental evidence that the ground will still exist when you jump off the bed every morning? Use your gut. Tired of this data driven nonsense as if the only way to make any decision in this universe is to use numerical data. If you had basic statistical knowledge you’d know statistics is useless for this situation.

Complete bs. Use your common sense.

> You’re the one pulling conspiracies out of thin air despite no evidence, and you made the claim.

What claim? All I said is consider both possibilities because given the situation both are likely. You’re the one making the claim that a guy who told everyone if he died it wasn’t a suicide is totally and completely and utterly a suicide. And you make this claim based off of way to general experimental evidence collected for only a general situation. You’re the type of genius who if your friend died you’d just assume it was a car accident because that’s the most likely we to die. No need to investigate anything. Even if your friend was like if I die in the next couple days I was murdered you’d insist that it’s a car accident. Look at you and your data driven genius.

You claimed: " Anytime someone potentially possesses information that is damning to a company and that person is killed… the low probability of such an even being a random coincidence is quite low"

You're unable to even estimate "the low probability", you're unable to try even though it's not hard to get good estimates, so there is zero chance you understand how close an event is to happening.

Every single suicide "potentially posses information...", so the probability is not quite low. It's 100%. Do you know what "potentially" means? It's complete conspiratorial nonsense.

Since you're unable to understand math: there's around 50,000 suicides a year in the US. How many murders do you think are committed by a company killing some coverup a year? Less than a dozen (and that's likely way too high)? That coupled with your hand wavy "potential" makes the odds of a suicide orders of magnitude higher than murder, especially since if the company wanted to murder people there's plenty that would be higher on the hit list, yet they all are not dead. Facts > conspiracy.

Aww, screw it. It's not even worth trying to walk you through how to compute any odds when you're dead set on nonsense....

Let me spell it out for you. The likelihood that When someone dies that it's from murder is less than 1%.

From your logic, that means because the likelihood is less than 1%, murder should never be investigated.

Police investigations, forensic science, DNA matching, murder trials, Detectives are all rendered redundant by statistics.

You can compute this too. ANd you can use your incredible logic here: Facts > murder.

You need to see why that situation above doesn't make sense. Once you do, you'll realize that the same exact logic that makes that situation make no sense is the EXACT same logic you're using to "compute" your new conclusion.

You need to realize there ARE additional facts here that render quantitative analysis impossible to ascertain and hand waving is the ONLY way forward. That is unless you want to actually go out there and gather the data.

You know logic, deduction and induction are alternative forms of analysis that can be done outside of science right? You should employ the former to know when the later is impossible.