philrenatoJul 31, 2023
Ken White

Some people have been sending me, or commenting with, alternate takes on what happened with the Hunter Biden plea deal.

I’m not certain I am right on my take, which I view as only the most likely scenario. That’s in part because I believe my experience leads me to wield Occam’s Razor differently — I don’t think some of the scenarios proposed can be called the “simplest,” based on my experience with the system. But I could be wrong.

/1

Jul 31, 2023 at 12:42amWeb
Show threadKen WhiteJul 31, 2023
/2 In judging other people’s takes, I respectfully invite you to consider (1) does the author have training and experience with the procedures at issue, (2) does the author insist that their interpretation is the only plausible one, (3) is the tone hysterical, and (4) does the conclusion align 100% with the priors of the author.
Show threadCharles HeroldJul 31, 2023

@Popehat So wait, you're saying you shouldn't just embrace the take that aligns most closely with *your* priors?

That will revolutionize social media!

Show threadexcited for the mastodon riseAug 3, 2023
@cherold @Popehat he's personally kinda bad at that though
Show threadRivetgeek (He/Him)Jul 31, 2023
@Popehat But, you don't know how much Law & Order I've watched!
Show thread₵ⱧⱤł₴ ⱤØ₥₱ NZ6F 🇺🇦💪🏻🇬🇱❤️Jul 31, 2023
@rivetgeek @Popehat Dun dun!
Show threadTang_FishJul 31, 2023
@Popehat good point. Self reflection is good. We all fall victim to righteousness from time to time. Myself included.
Show threadJennifer Kayla | Theogrin 🦊Jul 31, 2023

@Popehat

Would it be wrong to say that with the various idiosyncrasies of the legal system, sometimes the 'simplest' solution to which layfolks like myself would typically leap would introduce at least two orders of magnitude in complexity?

Like OPCA litigants, whose very presence in a case will either lead to an immediate dismissal with prejudice, or make things a hundred times messier for everyone involved.

Show threadKen WhiteJul 31, 2023
@theogrin Yes, quite right.
Show threadjack the nonabrasiveJul 31, 2023

OK, now I had to look up OPCA litigants. I found this to be a better explanation than the Wikipedia entry on Pseudolegal:

https://www.courthouselibrary.ca/how-we-can-help/our-legal-knowledge-base/what-are-opca-litigants

And yikes.

What are OPCA litigants? | Courthouse Libraries BC

In 2012, an Alberta case, Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, introduced a new category of vexatious litigant - Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) Litigants.  The judge stated:

Show threadJohn O’DonnellJul 31, 2023
@karabaic
Moorish Law? That’s a new one.
Show threadjack the nonabrasiveJul 31, 2023
@Jodami shriners?
Show threadJohn O’DonnellJul 31, 2023
@karabaic
Nope. Then again, Freemasonry is mostly associated with the police here, so they won’t be talking.
Show threadjack the nonabrasiveJul 31, 2023
@Jodami it was a fair cop, moor or less
Show threadCovidiocracyAug 3, 2023
@karabaic Orly’s Psycho Cabal of Antagonists
Show threadSpaceLifeFormJul 31, 2023

@Popehat

Jack has a sharp Razor.

I think he stole it from Hanlon.

Show threadMr. ColdFuryJul 31, 2023

@Popehat Appreciate your takes on this and other legal matters.

If I was going to tempt you into anything, I'd want to hear your take on Idaho's Ammon Bundy legal sagas. That'd be entertaining. (Or boring. you never know with legal analysis until I hear from the expert!)

Show threadEd PichonJul 31, 2023

@Popehat Not being absolutely sure of your interpretation is one of the reasons I pay attention to your interpretations.

That and the invocation of snorting taints.

Show threadQ.H. StoneJul 31, 2023
@Popehat Occam's Razor isn't really about choosing the simplest conclusion. It's about making the fewest number of assumptions.