This article was way too short, apparently targeted to the indiscriminate sound-bite reader. It does seem to provide sufficient data to explain why we *sometimes* (and perhaps even frequently) under/over-estimate probabilities, but the examples -- and the "dream" example in particular -- ignored "inconvenient" improbabilities related to some such cases, and were thus, unconvincing. I leave open the possibility that had the article been longer than six paragraphs, I might have been persuaded that nothing happens in this life more commonly than probabilities would explain. But it would take more than a couple of generic explanations of vague anecdotal examples to get me there. In short, this article bit off as a topic something that was way beyond its ability to chew in six paragraphs.