Am I missing something here, or is there a huge gap in the author's logic? As I understand it, the argument is like this: * 407 games run Vulkan * 270 of tho

Am I missing something here, or is there a huge gap in the author's logic? As I understand it, the argument is like this: * 407 games run Vulkan * 270 of those games also support Stadia * Therefore, direct quote here, "the entire gaming industry is better off because of Stadia and their partners paving the way here" It's hard for me to believe that a writer who, to quote his own bio, "is an HPC professional with a PhD in Physics from the University of California, Berkeley" would make an argument that correlation implies causation. On the other hand, I've looked over this article a couple of times and that seems to be all the argument there is. Considering how many tenuously related keywords the author stuffed into the article, I think a likely explanation is that this blog commissioned the article as SEO bait; a writer who doesn't know correlation from causation from their elbow and isn't being paid enough to find out wrote the article, concentrating mainly on keyword stuffing; the editor, who would have known better than to make this argument, posted the article after only the most cursory of readings, enough to satisfy himself that there were no blatant misspellings or racial slurs. It's not an interpretation that's flattering to the putative author, but on the other hand, it also wouldn't be flattering to think of him as a scientist with such a poor grasp of logic. Moot point anyway, I suppose, since though we might argue about how much Vulkan adoption Stadia was driving, I think we can all agree on how much more it will drive.