4 ms·
Of course one of the axes has been scaled. We're interested in the proportionality between the two variables, to see how good their claim that cars parked is a
by leblancfg 10y ago
Of course one of the axes has been scaled. We're interested in the proportionality between the two variables, to see how good their claim that cars parked is a good proxy measure for stock price. I see where "percent since arbitrary start time x" is a poor choice of units for cars, but since it's a linear transformation, you'd get the same picture (and conclusion) were you using "thousands of cars" instead.
- averagewall 10y agoI disagree that it shows proportionality. Since we don't know where the zero would be with "thousands of cars", it could be way off the bottom of the chart, which means car numbers are relatively constant, even as stock price falls to a few percent of it's starting value. The graph does show that both variables are decreasing, and that they both have a knee in the middle where the rate slows. But that's about all they clearly have in common. An yes, scaling is of course necessary. It's translating that's the problem. I shouldn't have said scaling in my first post.
- leblancfg 10y agoSorry, I still disagree with that comment. They're not comparing apples and oranges, here, they're saying "here's why we're using apples to approximate oranges". The graph is showing a close linear relationship between # of cars and stock price. It's saying "There is some a and b such that: a * "number of cars" + b ~ "stock price" You can have a gripe with that method, sure, but the graph is fine.