Balakot : Hitting Where It Hurts

[shaxm]

But it also does not mean that they will ALWAYS succeed.

That way your dad also might not be your dad because there is no proof that DNA tests are 100% secure and reliable. Maybe they pushed a wrong button while generation the final report. Oops! IAF did a right tap on the computer screen instead of left tap. Thats why bomb went to the right of target.

They had ample opportunity elsewhere. Parading our pilot while our leadership was telling anyone who will listen that military operation was over.

So thats why they closed the place for 40 days?

 

[Saaho]

That way your dad also might not be your dad because there is no proof that DNA tests are 100% secure and reliable.

Good point! Here how things are done in reality. If paternity of my dad comes into question and it needs to be answered, then I can get DNA test done. If I doubt the test, I can get repeated test, or test which follows different principles to determine paternity. This way I can increase the confidence that biologically he is indeed my dad -- if such a situation arises. This is how most of the medical decisions work. You can re-do the test or order an alternative test.

To do an analogous thing in Balakot scenario, we will need to hit those targets again, may be with bombs with a different guidance mechanism and with warheads big enough that there is no such doubt left. Our government balked at that idea. And unlike my dad's biological paternity for me, Balakot was a matter of national importance.

So thats why they closed the place for 40 days?

To be honest, they claimed that place was not in active use. To maintain that front, I am not surprised they kept the place closed. Honestly, if they are operating a terrorist training camp, they will not exactly like to attract too much attention to place anyways, won't they? Even the visit after 40 days was too much orchestrated for that reason.

 

[shaxm]

Good point! Here how things are done in reality. If paternity of my dad comes into question and it needs to be answered, then I can get DNA test done. If I doubt the test, I can get repeated test, or test which follows different principles to determine paternity. This way I can increase the confidence that biologically he is indeed my dad -- if such a situation arises. This is how most of the medical decisions work. You can re-do the test or order an alternative test.

Increasing confidence doesnt mean proof. Neither redoing test means they will get it right the next time.

To be honest, they claimed that place was not in active use. To maintain that front, I am not surprised they kept the place closed. Honestly, if they are operating a terrorist training camp, they will not exactly like to attract too much attention to place anyways, won't they? Even the visit after 40 days was too much orchestrated for that reason.

Whats the proof the place wasnt in active use ?

 

[Saaho]

Increasing confidence doesnt mean proof. Neither redoing test means they will get it right the next time.

You do know Bayes theorm, don't you?

Difference between these two scenario is that I can increase the likeliness to the point where doubt becomes meaningless. Usually, in medical practice two tests are good enough. Here, we never did any "second test".

Whats the proof the place wasnt in active use ?

It does not matter, "place is not in active use" was Pakistan's bluff and pretext to not allow anyone near it for so long they want. Infact, I think it is still active and in use.

 

[shaxm]

You do know Bayes theorm, don't you?

Difference between these two scenario is that I can increase the likeliness to the point where doubt becomes meaningless. Usually, in medical practice two tests are good enough. Here, we never did the "second test".

those theoritical models do they include if the person does a left click instead of right click and generates a wrong report. Show me the part where that condition is included. And at the end you are still talking about probabilities. So there is not gurantee.

 

[Saaho]

those theoritical models do they include if the person does a left click instead of right click and generates a wrong report. Show me the part where that condition is included. And at the end you are still talking about probabilities. So there is not gurantee.

you missed the part where he mentions "Bayes Theorm was not intended to be used once". It was at 5:00 point.

Basically each time you repeat a test and you do a test with differnt principles and by different tester you increase the accuracy. The left and right click error are just that, user errors which are part of why all tests are unreliable but by repeating you can increase their accuracy.

And at the end you are still talking about probabilities. So there is not gurantee.

There is a major difference between fixed probablity and probablity which you can decrease to the point where doubt is meaningless. If India would have redid the operation, probablity of weapon error or missing target would have been lesser.

 

[shaxm]

you missed the part where he mentions "Bayes Theorm was not intended to be used once". It was at 5:00 point.

Basically each time you repeat a test and you do a test with differnt principles and by different tester you increase the accuracy. The left and right click error are just that, user errors which are part of why all tests are unreliable but by repeating you can increase their accuracy.

you might 'increase their accuracy' but that doesnt guarantee a success.

 

[Saaho]

you might 'increase their accuracy' but that doesnt guarantee a success.

Decreasing chnace of failure arbirarily is what in real world is called success. Decreasing chance of a target escaping harm makes a weapon system or operation successful.

Since you originally asked about paternity tests, my point stands. I can increase my confidence aritrarily by redoing the test or doing different test. Indian government didn't do analogous. Hence two situation are not comparable.

 

[shaxm]

Decreasing chnace of failure arbirarily is what in real world is called success. Decreasing chance of a target escaping harm makes a weapon system or operation successful.

By that logic SPICE bombings were successful.

 

[Saaho]

Then pleas do not refer to theoretical models real world situations.

All models are theoritical. We understand real world by models only. If you don't have a model, you have only observations at best and no understanding.

 

[shaxm]

All models are theoritical. We understand real world by models only. If you don't have a model, you have only observations at best and no understanding.

How? and what is the proof?

 

[Saaho]

By that logic SPICE bombings were successful.

We have evidence (multiple sat images) that is not explained by bombs destroying the target so you need to errr.. "redo the experiment"?

How? and what is the proof?

Pray tell me, is there any aspect of the real world that you understand fully without abstraction? I don't.

Biggest proof? The unknown and unknowable unknows. We always assume that the things we don't know about real world are there and things we cann't even hope to know (at least now). That is one reason why all our understanding has abstractions. The other reason is most of real world is complex.

 

[Deathstar]

We have evidence (multiple sat images) that is not explained by bombs destroying the target so you need to errr.. "redo the experiment"?

Pray tell me, is there any aspect of the real world that you understand fully without abstraction? I don't.

Biggest proof? The unknown and unknowable unknows. We always assume that the things we don't know about real world are there and things we cann't even hope to know (at least now). That is one reason why all our understanding has abstractions. The other reason is most of real world is complex.

You are basing your evidence on sat pics by some entities like PlanetLab. Why should we beleive them? What if they are disinfo articles. How do you know the sat pics they released werent manipulated or you are sure these people are extremely honest that they won't do such a thing.
You are ready to believe Pakistan , 3rd party entities but wont believe your own armed forces , well good for you, its your choice

 

[Saaho]

You are basing your evidence on sat pics by some entities like PlanetLab. Why should we beleive them?

Good point! Its not just one such entity. The same thing was seen in two satellite images. One by Digital Globe (World View) and one is PlanetLabs. Both failed to show any inkling of damage to the structure and showed damage to vegetation. That is the stronger evidence than one single vendor doing deceit.

Next, we have seen nothing from our side. No images nothing. I only have personal trust. Thats all. Even if I convince myself, I can never prove it to anyone else that we did such a thing.

 

[shaxm]

We have evidence (multiple sat images) that is not explained by bombs destroying the target so you need to errr.. "redo the experiment"?

maybe you should redo the images instead. And please do it infinite times so that nothing is left to chance and probabilities.

Pray tell me, is there any aspect of the real world that you understand fully without abstraction? I don't.

Maybe then get your IQ checked with your baysean model.

Biggest proof? The unknown and unknowable unknows. We always assume that the things we don't know about real world are there and things we cann't even hope to know (at least now). That is one reason why all our understanding has abstractions. The other reason is most of real world is complex.

That doesnt proves or disproves anything.

 

[shaxm]

Good point! Its not just one such entity. The same thing was seen in two satellite images. One by Digital Globe (World View) and one is PlanetLabs. Both failed to show any inkling of damage to the structure and showed damage to vegetation. That is the stronger evidence than one single vendor doing deceit.

Both also failed to show why the place had to be shut for 40 days.

Next, we have seen nothing from our side. No images nothing. I only have personal trust. Thats all. Even if I convince myself, I can never prove it to anyone else that we did such a thing.

But you have pelthora of proofs that we did not do such a thing.

You are basing your evidence on sat pics by some entities like PlanetLab. Why should we beleive them?

Because they are white guys I guess.

 

[shaxm]

It does not matter, "place is not in active use" was Pakistan's bluff and pretext to not allow anyone near it for so long they want. Infact, I think it is still active and in use.

But you need to prove it also.

 

[Saaho]

Maybe then get your IQ checked with your baysean model.

I did check my IQ, thank you very much. By a proper MENSA test and I did alright.

Both also failed to show why the place had to be shut for 40 days.

Well, because thats not what satellite images do. They don't show intent, they show pictures of the earth surface, don't they?

But you have pelthora of proofs that we did not do such a thing.

As I said before, I have evidence in form of commerical satellite images that our bombs most likey didn't hit the targets. What I said there is Indian government and military did not present any evidence to the contrary.

Because they are white guys I guess.

Because its harder for two vendors to lie about the same thing at the same time in the same manner.

That doesnt proves or disproves anything.

It does. Since you wanted me not to refer to "theoretical models", I had to show you that in ALL models you miss some details. Unknowns are the most obvious things missing.

maybe you should redo the images instead. And please do it infinite times so that nothing is left to chance and probabilities.

That has already been done for us, isnt it? Two different images of the same place by two different vendors showing no damage.

 

[shaxm]

I did check my IQ, thank you very much. By a proper MENSA test and I did alright.

You need to redo do it via baysean model a infinite amount of times so as to remove any probablistic errors. Id you are giving exam for first time there are chances you might score much higher than your actual IQ. Just like how IAF can miss target because they were bombing for first time.

Well, because thats not what satellite images do. They don't show intent, they show pictures of the earth surface, don't they?

They show colored pixels. Sometimes grayscale too

As I said before, I have evidence in form of commerical satellite images that our bombs most likey didn't hit the targets. What I said there is Indian government and military did not present any evidence to the contrary.

Those coloured pixels do not prove anything.

Because its harder for two vendors to lie about the same thing at the same time in the same manner.

Maybe harder. But thats no proof they are not lying.

It does. Since you wanted me not to refer to "theoretical models", I had to show you that in ALL models you miss some details. Unknowns are the most obvious things missing.

Missing things are no proof to anything.

That has already been done for us, isnt it? Two different images of the same place by two different vendors showing no damage.

But both coloured pixels can be false. They can even be manipulated.