That seems fair; but they have a whole methodology section.
If you want to argue with it, surely the onus is on you to do it concretely?
> Because of your methodology, we must assume a biased sample.
^ I find this quote problematic.
Why must we assume that? If you want to distribution comparisons and point out there survey results are skewed by X compared to some other survey Y... ok.
...but that’s not whats happening right? Its just a flat out arbitrary assumption.
I don’t like arbitrary assumptions when I’m doing maths.
Its easy to say something is wrong, but if you can’t quanitfy how its wrong, I’m struggling to see why I should accept the assumption being raised here.
The js survey was very similar; it was arbitrarily asserted it went to more react developers... but no one actually proved that. They just... assumed it.
If you want to argue with it, surely the onus is on you to do it concretely?
> Because of your methodology, we must assume a biased sample.
^ I find this quote problematic.
Why must we assume that? If you want to distribution comparisons and point out there survey results are skewed by X compared to some other survey Y... ok.
...but that’s not whats happening right? Its just a flat out arbitrary assumption.
I don’t like arbitrary assumptions when I’m doing maths.
Its easy to say something is wrong, but if you can’t quanitfy how its wrong, I’m struggling to see why I should accept the assumption being raised here.
The js survey was very similar; it was arbitrarily asserted it went to more react developers... but no one actually proved that. They just... assumed it.