Occasionally, astronomically long odds multiplied by astronomically large benefits are worth the bet. But it's not worth the risk from embarrassment of two cents of effort needed to provide a word of support. Understanding the math requires the base 10 logarithm of the ratio of favorable odds over the unfavorable odds ( Lods). The long log odds of 6 sigma disfavorable is approximating -6 Lods. Could you put your two cents on a -24 Lod bet to substantially mitigate all disinformation? To do that you would need some insider information and evidence the insider is more likely than not correct.i.e. > 0 Lods a 24 point swing.
Because I am claiming to be that insider and that I know what a Lod is, we can update your odds to -21 from -24. At these odds, worse than 6 sigma cubed, it should still be worth the embarrassment if the result is actually solving core problems caused by disinformation. However, it's prudent to wait for evidence which I expect to arrive later this week on YouTube from the quantum physics community.
I know approximately what they will say because I told them where the flaw in their logic was. I am not sure exactly how they will say it. We are not coordinating. Briefly,for less than the month of December last year, I was the best theoretical physicist on the planet. That wasn't my goal. The physics textbooks got in the way of communicating things people did not want to hear.
Does it feel like the Lods are better or worse? What if I do know what I am talking about? Is it worth your effort to think about what to say when the physics community explains the impact from a piece of 100 year old disinformation?
The above was just to set the right framing for part 2 which claims our institutions have a flawed understanding about the constitution. It’s about -12 Lods that a random letter could be correct. But part 2 is not random.
Part 2
When the science community makes their announcements the odds change from -12 to +3 in favor. The same expert in finding disinformation discovered another example of 100+ year old institutional disinformation. It was convenient during civil war reconstruction to ignore James Madison’s success with our government using social contract principles. Social contract principles could shield every community from government overreach both conservative and progressive. Isn’t that worth some effort when the odds are positive?
To increase the Lods to +5 investigative my websites and comments: Blue Sky (@myowngp), YouTube (@chrisolmsted5678) or X(@olms25097). To get to a 6, beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, will take a conversation with a lawyer who is not beyond logic and can admit to having made a mistake. I believe we can get to 7 Supreme Court Justices.
FYI, I am flying from XXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Perhaps someone there will grant me a meeting after the quantum physicists make their announcements.
Following the intended governmental process I write this to: Danny K Davis and Sonya Harper.
As persons who can take corrective actions I write this to: JD Vance, JB Pritzker, Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth.