rootclaim appears to be yet another group of people who, having stumbled upon the idea of the Bayes rule as a good enough alternative to critical thinking, decided to try their luck in becoming a Serious and Important Arbiter of Truth in a Post-Mainstream-Journalism World.
This includes a randiesque challenge that they'll take a $100K bet that you can't prove them wrong on a select group of topics they've done deep dives on, like if the 2020 election was stolen (91% nay) or if covid was man-made and leaked from a lab (89% yay).
Also their methodology yields results like 95% certainty on Usain Bolt never having used PEDs, so it's not entirely surprising that the first person to take their challenge appears to have wiped the floor with them.
Don't worry though, they have taken the results of the debate to heart and according to their postmortem blogpost they learned many important lessons, like how they need to (checks notes) gameplan against the rules of the debate better? What a way to spend 100K... Maybe once you've reached a conclusion using the Sacred Method changing your mind becomes difficult.
I've included the novel-length judges opinions in the links below, where a cursory look indicates they are notably less charitable towards rootclaim's views than their postmortem indicates, pointing at stuff like logical inconsistencies and the inclusion of data that on closer look appear basically irrelevant to the thing they are trying to model probabilities for.
There's also like 18 hours of video of the debate if anyone wants to really get into it, but I'll tap out here.
ssc reddit thread
quantian's short writeup on the birdsite, will post screens in comments
pdf of judge's opinion that isn't quite book length, 27 pages, judge is a microbiologist and immunologist PhD
pdf of other judge's opinion that's 87 pages, judge is an applied mathematician PhD with a background in mathematical virology -- despite the length this is better organized and generally way more readable, if you can spare the time.
rootclaim's post mortem blogpost, includes more links to debate material and judge's opinions.
edit: added additional details to the pdf descriptions.
The guy goes by the handle RatOrthodox, calls rationalism his religion in the replies, seems kind of a cult-brained ideologue anyway based on his other tattoos, and went out of his way to make boinking aella into a public achievement/trophy thing.
This is just from the OP, I bet I could find any number of additional absolutely ridiculous things about him if I bothered with his twitter feed. Basically he seems like sneer incarnate, and if rationalists ever stormed the capitol building I bet he'd be the one with the face paint and the horned fur hat giving interviews.
Virtue signaling is not really interchangeable with attention whoring, it's when you specifically (and usually clumsily) want people to notice that you are part of an ingroup, and in this case the ingroup definitely isn't just people who like amateur tattooing and horny post on main.
Maybe I should explicitly note that unless this turns out to be another aella publicity stunt she does seem pretty incidental to the whole thing and her only fault appears to be being attractive this type of weirdo in the first place, which I'm not blaming her for.