The question was ambiguous for people, I think.

Some people looked at it like this: "I played a Cable Rat and rolled a lackey (we label it as a Titanic arbitrarily). Then I played another Rat. What are the odds my second lackey was a Titanic?"

That answer is 1/7...

...Because we know lackey generation is independent of other lackeys in game.

Other people looked at it like this: "I rolled two lackeys. At least one of them was a Titanic lackey. What are the odds both are Titanic?"

That answer is 1/13.

People ended up making different assumptions. We can look at this like the Boy-Girl Paradox.

"I have two children. The older child is a boy. What are the odds the other child is a boy?"

The answer there is 1/2. I could have had a B-G or a B-B.

Then there's the second Boy-Girl question: "I have two children. At least one is a boy. What are the odds the other is a boy?"

Here the answer is 1/3. I could have had a B-G, a G-B, or a B-B. The G-G option is excluded, given the information we received.

So when people read the question, they read it either as "I rolled 2 lackeys: A and B. Lackey A is arbitrarily designated as a Titanic Lackey. What are the odds that lackey B is Titanic?" (1/7) or as "I rolled two and at least one is a Titanic" (1/13)

Hope that helps

I don't think so. The perspective seems to depends on whether people interpreted the question as "I artificially designated that the first lackey played is X" or "At least one of the Lackeys is X"