The other common example of the same phenomena is a test for a deadly genetic defect with a 1% false positive rate. If the incidence of the defect is .01% and you test positive, its actually more likely that you don't have the disease. (although this can be solved with bayesianism over frequentism).
That's incredibly unnecessary. My understanding of statistics is not derived from comics (and the first time I heard that example was in a statistics course), and the link you post doesn't actually address what I stated. It addresses an actual mistake in the comic, which is a mistake that I didn't make.
Here's Andrew, the author of that blog post:
> Yes, I think it makes a lot of sense to criticize particular frequentist or Bayesian methods rather than to criticize freq or Bayes statisticians.
Which is exactly what I did. There are times when frequentist methods are effective. I just wouldn't use them to tell me that I have a disease.
