
How to Call B.S. On Big Data: A Practical Guide - sndean
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/how-to-call-bullshit-on-big-data-a-practical-guide?intcid=mod-latest
======
candletot
I love this one:

'Mind the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle, articulated by the Italian software
developer Alberto Brandolini in 2013: the amount of energy needed to refute
bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. Or,
as Jonathan Swift put it in 1710, “Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping
after it.”'

It summarizes my workplace experiences (yeah, confirmation bias). I've called
bullshit on engineers a few times, but managers seem not to care. I gave up
doing it, and instead whenever a engineer makes bullshit claims about a
particular process/software/language I ask him "can you show us a working
example?" Give them enough rope...

------
1337biz
Great article! But when I saw the New Yorker Url my first reation was - let's
see how they are going to make this into something negative about Trump this
time. They still live up to my expectations.

~~~
elefanten
It was one joke said in passing. And it was directly relevant to the content
of the sentence it was in.

I don't think your implied critique holds much water here. This isn't an
academic paper anyway... it's an expository article written in the
amusing/playful tone for which the publication is known.

~~~
1337biz
Not sure if this was intended as a joke, or another one of those pedantic
remarks. If they are serious about that argument they should start telling
their advertisers not the total number of Unique Visitors, but the Unique
Visitors in relation to the total number of Internet Users. I'd love to see
how successful they became over the last 10 years...

~~~
huac
That's silly, because every platform then has the same denominator of 'total
internet users,' and you're dividing by the same number.

~~~
sparky_z
It's not silly because the number changes over time. It could make the
difference between an upward trend and a downward trend. (Whether that
difference matters is up to you, but it is a difference.)

~~~
huac
But everybody faces the same trend in 'total worldwide internet users.' So if
an advertiser has its choice of platforms to advertise on, it can compare the
same metric, regardless of whether or not you do the division.

------
johan_larson
The title of the course would be just as accurate if they omitted the "on Big
Data" part.

It's an applied philosophy course, really, about how to spot misleading
claims.

~~~
abalashov
Yeah, I am not sure what's "Big Data" about any of this.

~~~
firethief
That's very common in Big Data™

~~~
johan_larson
The first rule of Big Data is that you probably don't have Big Data.

~~~
edward_rolf
Instead try to realize the truth. There is no data. Then you may realize it is
not the data that is big... it is your head.

~~~
abalashov
Or the portfolio of buzzword targets your investors/MBA frat boys/marketing
vets want you to hit.

------
graycat
My guess about VCs and big data:

My guess is a special case of my guess about VCs and X for any new technology
or tech buzz word X, that is, just substitute "big data" for X.

The guess is a special case of the difference between the sizzle and the
steak. Or, remember, sell the sizzle, not the steak.

Well, VCs have Web sites and there commonly emphasize the X, the sizzle, they
are interested in.

In fact, for a VC, X or sizzle with a dime won't cover even a 10 cent cup of
coffee. And a VC won't invest even 10 cents in X or sizzle.

So, why do VCs emphasize their interest in X they don't care about?

Well, VCs want _deal flow_ , that is, entrepreneurs presenting their projects
so claim they are interested in current sizzle X. Then entrepreneurs with a
project in subject X will eagerly contact the VC.

Now what? Sure, the VC ignores the X, the sizzle, and looks for some steak,
usually traction significant and growing rapidly, better still, revenue
significant and growing rapidly. They also look at the founders, etc. The one
thing they do NOT look at, understand, respect, evaluate, or care about is X
or the sizzle.

None of this effort means anything for a VC unless they can see enough steak
to start negotiations with the entrepreneurs. Now we see why the VCs said they
were interested in X: During the negotiations, they will pretend to evaluate
the business based on X, not on the steak. Then the VCs will denigrate, diss,
minimize, insult, run down, criticize X as of not very solid business value
and lower their evaluation ( _pre-money_ ) of the business. And THAT'S where
the VCs get their payoff for their claims of interest in X.

So, selling/buying the sizzle instead of the steak hides the real value, the
steak, and the VCs want to do that.

There must be some explanation for the very common practice of VCs saying they
are interested in X. IMHO, no way are the VCs interested in X, _big data_ ,
AI, ML, etc. -- those topics are just sizzle to hide their interest in what
they regard as steak.

If can, then check out my guess: Say, get a VC to explain any of the value of
big data, AI, or ML in a reasonably solid and well informed way! Uh, "X is
eating the world" is NOT good enough!

There must be an explanation, and my best guess is above!

YMMV!!

------
SirLJ
Size doesn't matter... :-)

