3 ms·
To be pedantic - two things happening at the same time are correlated but what is not necessarily proven definitively is that its causation. And yes - its stil
by somethoughts 5y ago
To be pedantic - two things happening at the same time are correlated but what is not necessarily proven definitively is that its causation.
And yes - its still early innings and the single data point is end user collected from a "bug report" by a major power end user (i.e Union Pacific).
But at the end of the day - UP is a power enterprise level user (of California as a Service) who happens to provide a useful add on service to a large chunk of the CAaS end user community.
I'd say as a proactive PM/dev responsible (i.e. Newsome, CA District Attorney, etc.) for championing the new feature (i.e. bail reform), I'd be attentively listening to all users of the community about their feedback/UX experiences and very actively thinking about tweaks to improve site uptime even before definitive data existed that pointed to my feature causing outages. Or concretely ensuring/proving its not.
If I wanted to get that promotion that is.
- wolverine876 5y ago> two things happening at the same time are correlated but what is not necessarily proven definitively is that its causation. That part is incorrect: Correlation is defined as (A => B) AND (!A => !B). (I.e., that's a logical AND; both terms must be true.) Every morning, the rooster crows and the sun rises; that's not correlation because if the rooster doesn't crow, the sun still rises. (The actual definition of correlation is, IME, a very powerful tool for analysing through assertions.) As you say, correlation does not mean causation, even using the proper definition. For example, two people completely unknown to each other may, over the course of an hour, laugh, cheer, and cry at the same time, in a highly correlated manner. But there is no causation between them; they are merely watching the same live TV show.