|
but shouting those four words doesn't help distinguish between correlation and causation. to do that, you have to actually look at the data, all of it.
|
|
|
|
|
The "disparate impact" doctrine deliberately ignores any possible explanations; it looks only at the results, i.e. it assumes that correlation implies causation.
Even looking at the data collected might not help. For example, explaining a study that found a positive correlation between the number of televisions in a household and the rate of divorce would require knowing the meta-data that:
- As couples age, they tend to become wealthier, to have larger houses (more rooms), and to have a TV in each room.
- The peak rate of divorce is when the couples reach middle age (40s to 50s).
- After the children leave the nest (parents in the 50s), many couples downsize to smaller living quarters (fewer rooms).
I have my doubts that this algorithm incorporates all possible meta-data...
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: The "disparate impact" doctrine deliberately ignores any possible explanations; it looks only at the results, i.e. it assumes that correlation implies causation.
ignoring explanations for an effect != assuming correlation implies causation.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Losinger wrote: but shouting those four words
I liked the shouting. I thought it was nice and it kind of woke me up.
Besides...
Correlation is NOT CAUSATION!!!
And most people haven't had it shouted into their heads enough. 
|
|
|
|
|
Very good.
I'll shout along with you.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Correlation is not causation!!!
|
|
|
|
|
fyi: I found the article and the implications the author(s) drew from the "research" as ludicrous as the fascist virus of "political correctness" now infecting the body-politic in most "developed" nations.
«Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.» Benjamin Franklin
|
|
|
|
|
What happens when you take away the quality assurance team in a software development operation? Fewer, not more errors, along with a vastly quicker development cycle. Ignoring the obvious comment about Yahoo's strength as a company these days
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a disturbing trend in the name of quicker dev cycles.
That's not what we ask for though.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to know how this works in practice. As we all know, developers shouldn't test their own code, so who exactly is testing the code if not a tester? Even if they are writing all sorts of automated tests and creating tools, are they still testing their own code? If so, then I don't see how this could ever be a successful strategy.
It smacks more of cost-cutting measures than a genuine desire to increase quality.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
It works by writing unit tests or even better, using test driven development... Anyway what's wrong with testing your own code? - Everybody tests their own code! do you really hand over your code to QA without at least making sure it works? I alway test what I write.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes of course I test my own code, and write unit tests too. I do all the same things that Yahoo engineers do, but I go one step further and hand my code over to a tester for independent verification.
My code may work, but that's not the end of the story. My UI needs to be consistent with the rest of the application and it needs to trigger failures and omissions consistently for example.
Having your code tested by an independent testing team gives a level of verification above and beyond what a developer on their own can give.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
I've noticed this trend a couple of years ago. Dedicated QA departments are becoming a thing of the past and developers are expected to write automatic tests for their code.
|
|
|
|
|
Wait...Yahoo! ? Let me think...?
That's that company that did the same stuff that altavista.com did, right?
Right?
Wait, you're ignoring me, aren't you?
|
|
|
|
|
Well, duh! 
It's quite obvious you'll find less errors if no one is looking for them!
|
|
|
|
|
We should do this in airplane and car manufacturing as well to make them safer!
Wout
|
|
|
|
|
As the programming language hits version 1.5, Mozilla should build both with it and on top of it Because it never sleeps
|
|
|
|
|
I predict a new Rust oriented product: Rust-oleum
Decrease the belief in God, and you increase the numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being “society’s supervisors,” who deny the existence of divine standards, but are very serious about imposing their own standards on society.-Neal A. Maxwell
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
While there is broad agreement that Agile improves the chances of successful software initiatives as compared to the deeply flawed waterfall approach, Agile still faces many challenges, even after so many years. I was looking for clickbait headlines: you won't believe what happened next!
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry may be the hardest word, but it seems to be tripping off Microsoft's tongue quite freely at the moment. I'm still waiting for the apology for the registry
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for making W10 a spyware.
Sorry for making W10 a virus by using Wupdate to automatically hijack your previous Windows.
Sorry for removing the menu in Office.
Patrice
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Predicting the future is fraught with challenges, but when it comes to technological advances and forward thinking, experts working at the Pentagon's research agency may be the best people to ask. Jetpacks for everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future.
Niels Bohr
|
|
|
|
|
IBM's internal OMR project makes maintaining JVM easier across platforms -- and may give other languages a performance boost OMR = One More Runtime?
|
|
|
|
|
Noted killer robot-fearer Elon Musk has a plan to save humanity from the looming robopocalypse: developing advanced artificial intelligence systems. You know, the exact technologies that could lead to the robopocalypse. It's reverse psychology, but for AIs
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
