• Septimaeus@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    lol yes. But it’s not the regular evidence of shoestring infrastructure and lack of process that casts doubt on these grand conspiracies. It’s the diminishing conditional probability, over time, that they are somehow always the exception.

      • Septimaeus@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        If we flip a fair coin once, the odds of not getting tails is 50%. If we flip twice, the odds diminish to 25%. Flip 20 times, the odds diminish to 0.000001%.

        This is the conditional probability that makes the concealment of large and/or longterm conspiracies implausible: we say that the odds of getting heads on the 100th toss, conditioned on the probability of having already gotten heads 99 times, is less than a billion billion billion to one.

        And the grander the conspiracy, i.e. the more individuals involved, the more “coin flips” regularly occur, and the faster these infinitesimal odds are reached — hence the expression “too many minions spoil the plot.”

        So while mistakes are indeed unsurprising, the fact that none have ever uncovered big old conspiracies (especially the likes of flat earth, fake moon landing, aliens, etc.) suggests the odds of their veracity are, at this point, vanishingly small.

        • TankieTanuki [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Gotcha.

          I think it’s important to agree on a definition of “conspiracy theory” and also on what qualifies as spoiling or revealing the plot in these discussions. Otherwise we’re probably talking about different things.