3 ms·
>On this view O'Neil's view is correct: the cause was not "bad modelling" but "bad data." The "bad data" in the model was an "effect" of corruption, not the roo
by cube13 14y ago
>On this view O'Neil's view is correct: the cause was not "bad modelling" but "bad data." The "bad data" in the model was an "effect" of corruption, not the root "cause" of the financial meltdown.
So it goes that corruption caused bad data, which caused a bad analysis by the model(she claims that both the data and model are bad), which caused the financial meltdown.
That does not invalidate Silver's point. It merely points out that Silver's analysis may be inadequate.
- pygy_ 14y agoWhat I understand is that she means that corruption lead to the financial crisis. The bad models/data were just a smoke screen, or an instrument to get rich quicker.
- freyr 14y agoSilver's point can be technically valid, but ultimately shallow and irrelevant. That seems to be what she's arguing.