4 ms·

I wouldn't put it past a group of Fezza owners to be conspiring about something at any given time :P But to be serious, my point was more about the way that th

I wouldn't put it past a group of Fezza owners to be conspiring about something at any given time :P But to be serious, my point was more about the way that they are collecting their data. If you were focusing on buildings and structures in a suburb to rate demographics, I would think that you would have more accurate results. Cars don't stay still though, and just because it's in a location at a particular time doesn't necessarily mean it lives there. The ferrari club going for coffee is just an example of affluent (types of) cars possibly throwing out results.

throwaway613834 9y ago
It's doesn't mean anything to just point at the source of an error though. You need to show that the error results in a bias (edit: or variance) on a large scale. My point here was that it seems pretty plausible for the law of large numbers to take care of little variances like this, so if you want to claim their collection was problematic, explain which errors could occur consistently so as to reach a wrong conclusion.