It’s not reaching. See my response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49622516

> Like saying the probability your uncle died of a shark attack is either 0 or 1.

For a frequentist, it is. If you want the Bayesian interpretation of probability, you must calculate the probability that the interval you ended up getting contains the true value, and you can easily end up with a value different from 95%. You can’t just stop at “it was drawn from a pool of intervals of which 95% contain the true value” since you have more information than that (the numerical bounds).