zlacker
[parent]
[thread]
6 comments
1. n2d4+(OP)
[view]
[source]
2025-05-19 20:17:55
It's not survivorship bias. Survivorship bias would be if you made any conclusions from the 1000 merged PRs (eg. "90% of all merged PRs did not get reverted"). But simply stating the number of PRs is not that.
replies(2):
>>tines+2j
>>krainb+p51
◧
2. tines+2j
[view]
[source]
2025-05-19 22:15:53
>>n2d4+(OP)
As with all good marketing, the conclusions omitted and implied, no?
replies(1):
>>n2d4+mz
◧◩
3. n2d4+mz
[view]
[source]
[discussion]
2025-05-20 00:35:10
>>tines+2j
The implied conclusion ("Copilot made 1000 changes to the codebase") is also not survivorship bias.
By that logic, literally every statement would be survivorship bias.
replies(1):
>>tines+vI
◧◩◪
4. tines+vI
[view]
[source]
[discussion]
2025-05-20 02:10:48
>>n2d4+mz
That’s not the implied conclusion my guy. That’s the statement.
replies(1):
>>n2d4+lK
◧◩◪◨
5. n2d4+lK
[view]
[source]
[discussion]
2025-05-20 02:34:13
>>tines+vI
Then what do you claim the implied conclusion is?
replies(1):
>>Jenk+781
◧
6. krainb+p51
[view]
[source]
2025-05-20 06:50:54
>>n2d4+(OP)
Given that Github is continuing with the product and marketing to us it feels sufficient to count that as a conclusion.
◧◩◪◨⬒
7. Jenk+781
[view]
[source]
[discussion]
2025-05-20 07:20:00
>>n2d4+lK
That the number of successful (as in, merged and works) contributions are greater than those that did not.
[go to top]