| We are talking about different things. One is about attributing causes to an increase in failure rate, the other is about verifying whether there is any material increase in the rate at all. My comment addresses the latter as a back of the envelope calculation. Strictly speaking, when looked at through a fine toothed comb, yes the assumptions are very likely wrong. All models are wrong [0], but some of them are useful. The question is can we get some useful conclusions from such a simple model. In my experience I have been surprised by how often low failure rates are captured well by Poisson processes. Yes the assumptions could be wrong, but are they very likely to lead to wrong conclusions ? Empirical experience and math says otherwise. There are sound reasons for why this happens. If you are interested, you can pick that up from Feller. These [1] [2] links might also help. Given the data that we have, its a plenty good first cut, but that's what it is -- a first cut. With more data one can do a more refined analysis. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_point_process#Approxim... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_point_process#Converge... |
What resource would you recommend to get an intuitive grasp of statistics?
To give you an idea about what kind of resource (book) I'm looking for: I'm currently reading Elements of Statistical Learning and I enjoy that it has all the mathematical rigour I need to really understand why all of it works, but also that it's heavy on commentary and pictures, which helps me to understand the math quicker. Counterexamples: Baby Rudin one one side of the spectrum, The Hundred-Page Machine Learning Book on the other.