> why should predictors be so coddled by their observers?
I suppose that in the RIM example the predictor correctly identified causes and concerns. The timelines are off. But highlighting the causes are interesting to me, as a datapoint.
If someone says "hey there's a problem here", you can somewhat independently look at the problem and validate its seriousness on your end.
Some people in this thread are like "well the value is in the prediction", but from my perspective I'm thinking "the value is in the causal analysis". Because if you merely think the timelines are wrong you can easily just change numbers around.
Obviously Zitron is not "always right", and isn't getting all causal analysis right IMO. I do think he's bringing up things though.