2 ms·
>> The aspect I would have called out is the fact that they're citing a trend inversion with less than a year's of data. this could be a season effect, natural
by sharkmerry 8y ago
>> The aspect I would have called out is the fact that they're citing a trend inversion with less than a year's of data. this could be a season effect, natural volatility, any number of other things, and this single trendline is not a hugely confidence-building piece of evidence on its own.
I must be lost, what trend inversion are they citing with less than a years data?
- existencebox 8y agoNo, you're correct, and I misparsed the chart _entirely_, thanks for calling out; for some insane reason I thought it was a monthly cadence (since I think I glanced and saw "april" and elided the fact that it was year incremented.) I'd stand by the crux of my statement that I don't think the chart was intentionally misleading, however, with one fewer complaints about the nature of the data :)