Early-found bugs are cheap. Early-appeared bugs are dear. Quickly-found bugs are cheap, long-standing bugs are dear.
One claim is:
If you find the problem at moment “50”,you get high mortality if the problem started at moment “10″ and low mortality if the problem started at moment “40”.
Other claim is:
If the problem appeared at moment “10” you get higher treatment success if it is detected at moment “20″ than if it was detected at moment “50”.
So, there is Contraction and Detection, and the higher D-C, the more trouble you get. It is common sense now, and of course if you vary one of C and D, you get different signs of correlation between D-C and variable.
Actually, it is plausible-sounding, but I can assure you that in 5 minutes of thinking about it you can find at least one excellent alternative explanation for the observed association.
To me these claims are the equivalent of “we use only 10% of our brains”, they have a vague plausibility which explains that so many people have accepted them uncritically, but they don’t stand up to closer examination; unfortunately the damage has been done and you have to do a lot of work to persuade people to let go of the mistaken beliefs they have accepted, and that they now think are “scientific” or “proven by research”.
Actually, the same bug being found earlier rather than later will probably be cheaper to fix, the question about measure of that cheapness (and whether the difference always covers the cost of finding it earlier) is impossible to answer with current level of actual expense we as society are prepared to spend.
Nope, it doesn’t follow from any of the graphs.
Early-found bugs are cheap. Early-appeared bugs are dear. Quickly-found bugs are cheap, long-standing bugs are dear.
One claim is:
If you find the problem at moment “50”,you get high mortality if the problem started at moment “10″ and low mortality if the problem started at moment “40”.
Other claim is:
If the problem appeared at moment “10” you get higher treatment success if it is detected at moment “20″ than if it was detected at moment “50”.
So, there is Contraction and Detection, and the higher D-C, the more trouble you get. It is common sense now, and of course if you vary one of C and D, you get different signs of correlation between D-C and variable.
Actually, it is plausible-sounding, but I can assure you that in 5 minutes of thinking about it you can find at least one excellent alternative explanation for the observed association.
To me these claims are the equivalent of “we use only 10% of our brains”, they have a vague plausibility which explains that so many people have accepted them uncritically, but they don’t stand up to closer examination; unfortunately the damage has been done and you have to do a lot of work to persuade people to let go of the mistaken beliefs they have accepted, and that they now think are “scientific” or “proven by research”.
There I cited one such reason without thinking 5 minutes
http://lesswrong.com/lw/9sv/diseased_disciplines_the_strange_case_of_the/5tz7
Actually, the same bug being found earlier rather than later will probably be cheaper to fix, the question about measure of that cheapness (and whether the difference always covers the cost of finding it earlier) is impossible to answer with current level of actual expense we as society are prepared to spend.