First, a "hypothesis" is always wothour evidence - hence the name. Otherwise it would be called "data" or "conclusion".

Anyway, the 2% isn't "baseless", you're just too inexperienced to see it.

It's a thing physicists do, in particular successful ones (e.g. Fermi when he estimated the yield of the first nuclear bomb, the guys who inventes BCS theory when they chose the sign, etc... I could go on, but yoh probably have no idea what I'm talking about anyway).

It's called "approximation", "estimation" or "Fermi calculation", depending on whonyou ask. It generally goes like this:

- last century the "probability" was expressed at 1% (where ever thos number comes from, and whether you agree or not, is immaterial; it's generally the number thatbwas circulated, and is our starting point)

- there were two nuclear powers, observing each other, but never engaging in direct conflict with one another

- today we have 3 nuclear superpowers, and another 6 smaller powers; (and a bunch of nuclear-capable nations, i.e. which obtain that technology with purely domestic means, e.g. Brazil... but he didn't say that). Anyway. The complexity of the situation then (1 interaftion) vs now (36 interactions between 9 countries) goes through the roof.

- additionally, of those, 1 superpower is currently under active attack on its own soil (Russia), another is in a war with its neighbour (Israel), and yet another has started two unprovoked invasions in one year (USA)

- a lower-bound estimation for the curreny probability of 2% seems reasonable at the very least.

You're welcome. Glad I could share a bit of the Physicists' Secret Wisdom with you today. Use honorably.

Which is why it will probably have less protection and be free to use because "we only want to protect.th children".

And once established, do you think that number won't continue to identify the adults once they reach that age?

I don't think you realize what a Nobel-grade physicist does. Hint: he most likely hasn't seen the inside of a lab for 20 years (source: I'm a physics PhD, and we keep our head of department out of the lab at the threat of physical force). If you think his job is not 100% politics... man, do I have a bridge to sell you.

And about "military strategy"... no, it isn't. There's no strategy involved in "let's kill 4 billion people", anyone can come up with that idea. And there's also no strategey involved in "how" when you have nukes -- you simply use them. You can't use them "wrong", they will get the job done either way.

Military strategy is about winning a battle, not starting a self-extinction grade artificial event.

What this guy is better at than, apparently, you, is pattern recognition and extrapolation from history.

...thanks for the anecdotes (unironically). I was aware of some of them, but not all.

And yes, these things tend to happen when the spring is tightened that way and the biggest fear by far that "geopolitical experts" display is not fear of extinction, but not being able to pull the trigger fast enough. I.e. "hovering over the button."

From Wikipedia: "Geopolitics ([...] is the study of the effects of Earth's geography on politics and international relations.[1][2][3] Geopolitics usually refers to countries and relations between them."

It's nor that he's an expert at that, it's that he realised that "geopolitics" and "self-extinction" aren't the same thing - and you don't need to be an expert at one to see the other.

Dismissing that would be like dismissing someone who warns that a car could be driven into a crowd at high speed just because they're "not a race driver".

He's simply better than you on pattern recognition.

"Not a guatantee" or "not likely"?

> This "Nobel Prize winner" is a class-A jerk who is going to cause a bunch of people a lot of unhappiness

Sure, because it's the guy saying "careful, we're about to blow ourselves up" that's "going to cause unhappiness", not the fucktark who hovers their finger above the button... *facepalm*

> Nobel laureates making authoritative claims about fields that they don't have credentials in [...]

Have you looked at the people who "have credentials" lately?

They're pretty much the problem.

Well, technically "pockets" of smaller dinosaurs still survived, but we still consider them extinct for all practical purposes.

"Accidental" as in, someone deliberately pushing a button?

50% is usually considered the threshold, not 98%. That's 35 years.

But Trump is, right?

You think his brains can only do physics?

> (insane people excepted, of course)

Too bad when they have their finger hovering.

Or maybe he has more brains than "other ape bad, must destroy".