Correct me if I am wrong but Francesca is complaining that of all the duplicate and out of order ID, Data Colada is not listing all of them?
Francesca is also saying that Data Colada only picking on one variable that is suspicious and not talking about the other [?non suspicious] variable? Correct if I am wrong but isn’t this is just banana? obviously Data Colada would not talk about normal data.
Can someone with more familiarity with these things and have time to spare can read it and tell me if Francesca rebuttal make sense?
I don’t think these covers the calcChain part, which I’m now convinced is less damning than everything else, but it is still additional evidence (either the rows were swapped manually, or Excel just happened to recalculate the out-of-order rows in the most suspicious possible way).
I am confused.
I have not read much of this rebuttal and I am not academically inclined but just reading the first part of this
https://www.francesca-v-harvard.org/data-colada-post-1
Correct me if I am wrong but Francesca is complaining that of all the duplicate and out of order ID, Data Colada is not listing all of them?
Francesca is also saying that Data Colada only picking on one variable that is suspicious and not talking about the other [?non suspicious] variable? Correct if I am wrong but isn’t this is just banana? obviously Data Colada would not talk about normal data.
Can someone with more familiarity with these things and have time to spare can read it and tell me if Francesca rebuttal make sense?
ACX shared these rebuttals that explain why Gino’s defence doesn’t make sense:
https://fashionalexpectations.substack.com/p/ginormous-coincidences https://twitter.com/JohnHBillings/status/1708187948208857363
I don’t think these covers the calcChain part, which I’m now convinced is less damning than everything else, but it is still additional evidence (either the rows were swapped manually, or Excel just happened to recalculate the out-of-order rows in the most suspicious possible way).