> he probably threw that in just to make you think there's an option besides the police
That's what I thought, too. For some reason, scammers often have high social intelligence. Maybe it's like with any other domain: if you understand how computers work, you are compelled to use computers a lot. If you understand how people work, you must be compelled to use people?
Summary:
When people are good at what they do, they don't mistake the author for another person and are able to discuss intelligent topics while working.
However, since only one age value can be actually correct in this case, the use of logic looks less like a feature of the programmer's mind and more like a bug.
I'm not sure how to describe this in rigorous Bayesian terms, but things usually happen in patterns. When we make inferences, we cannot ignore the context.
Based on the recent history of violence in France, is it more likely that a mass killing committed by a Franco-Tunisian (who are mostly Muslims) on a clearly suicide mission is related or is not related to islamic terrorism? Better yet (since money does have a tendency to clear the mind), what would you bet $100 on?
I'm not saying that we don't need facts. We still have to confirm everything, and strange unlikely things do happen. But at the same time, we cannot act as if we are completely ignorant until we get substantial evidence.
It's disturbing that in the age when we can manipulate atoms, we still cannot do anything about religious fanaticism, and about religion itself for that matter.
One might think that mankind is just a bunch of stupid monkeys that happen to be very good with tools.
That's what I thought, too. For some reason, scammers often have high social intelligence. Maybe it's like with any other domain: if you understand how computers work, you are compelled to use computers a lot. If you understand how people work, you must be compelled to use people?