4 ms·
> for events that would legitimately obfuscate the data You'll need to define "legitimately obfuscate" here - presumably you're proposing that a majority of da
by lucideer 3y ago
> for events that would legitimately obfuscate the data
You'll need to define "legitimately obfuscate" here - presumably you're proposing that a majority of data consumers would consider wildfires irrelevant in their assessment of air quality. Why do you think this?
Anecdata but off the top of my head I can only think of data consumption in which wildfires would be relevant - excluding the data gives a harmfully incomplete picture.
It also strikes me that data annotation would solve whatever your use-case might be if data needs to be excluded?
- jjk166 3y agoYou seem to be confused, the data isn't being deleted so that no one else can consume it. It is just being annotated to be excluded from the EPA's evaluation of whether stricter pollution controls than already implemented are necessary.
- lucideer 3y ago> whether stricter pollution controls than already implemented are necessary in which case this seems to posit that measures to reduce human causes of wildfires are not valid pollution control measures?
- jjk166 3y agoNo, it's positing that valid pollution control measures don't reduce human caused wildfires. These specific valid pollution control measures are just restrictions on industrial emissions, not "all conceivable pollution controls".