LOL. So, the LessWrong *moderator* claims that I did not "include specific, uncontroversial examples of all the claimed intellectual bankruptcy, and not just a bunch of random (and wrong) snipes."
I had HOPED to respond thusly:
"I did in fact include empirical metrics of Dirichlet's superiority: industry uses it, after they did their own tests. I also showed how Dirichlet Process allows you to compute Confidence Intervals, while Bayes' Theorem is incapable of computing Confidence Intervals. I also explained how, due to the median of the likelihood function being closer to an equal distribution than Bayes would expect, Bayes is persistently biased toward whichever extrema might be observed in the sample. So, I did give explicit reasons why Bayes' Theorem is inadequate compared to the modern, standard approach which has empirical backing in industry.
It seems like you want to rate-limit me for an unspecified duration? What are the empirical metrics for that rate-limit being removed? And, the fact that you claim I "didn't provide specific, uncontroversial examples," when I just showed you those specifics again here, implies that you either weren't reading everything very carefully, or you want to mischaracterize me to silence any opposition of your preferred technique: Bayes'-Theorem-by-itself."
Unfortunately! The Moderator, after mis-representing me, decided to RATE-limit me, such that I must wait to counter their mis-representation. THAT is how these "Rationalists" really operate. You can check:
