4 ms·
You're completely right- and I really don't think we can overstate how embarrassing of an oversight this is for the New Yorker. I know journalists are not the
by jhamburger 16y ago
You're completely right- and I really don't think we can overstate how embarrassing of an oversight this is for the New Yorker. I know journalists are not the biggest math fans out there but some basic understanding of statistics, data analysis and general rigor applied to vetting your web sources is a requirement for an article like this.
- davidmathers 16y agoActually the New Yorker article has this sentence which is ignored by tuaw: Another Web site, Salary List, quotes a substantially higher figure—$107,719—but that doesn’t appear to include people working at Apple’s more than three hundred retail stores. And this disclaimer at the top: One word of warning, though. What follows should be considered a process of me thinking out loud, and pointing out some things that strike me, rather than reaching any definitive conclusions. And, oh yeah, it doesn't have a misleading link-bait headline either. There's actually nothing at all embarrassing about the New Yorker article. Tuaw just pulled a quote out of context and turned it into an inane blog post.
- jhamburger 16y agoWell the blog post is much worse, but the $46,000 number is worthless if it's just the average of jobs with "apple" in the description, It really shouldn't be included for any reason in the New Yorker post.