MB is puzzled about the use of Bayesian techniques in the evaluation of (supposedly-) ultrareliable systems.
I'm not puzzled by that at all. I understand it quite well.
What does puzzle me is your own contradictions. You say one thing in a post. Then the exact opposite in a following post. It's that reality that makes me wonder if you are being argumentative.
If that's what you want to discuss, fine.
You remind me of a younger sibling who once proudly proclaimed to me that "you have to play by the definitions in
my dictionary." To me your posts amount to the claim that the letter A is equal to the letter B in their graphical design. I don't know how to have that discourse on that basis.
What I get is an constant appeal to your authority as an expert. One of the main reasons I chose to remain anonymous on these boards is precisely because I would rather discusses matters free from such appeals. Rational men are able to see the light of truth where ever it may shine, in the gutter no less than the academy.