[zamalek]

> A correlation in your sample (especially at that size) does not imply a correlation in the population

At least quote the article correctly.

> That is, correlation in the data you happen to have (even if it happens to be “statistically significant”) does not necessarily imply correlation in the population of interest.

(Emphasis mine)

Otherwise you might as well throw out centuries of mathematical, statistical and scientific progress. That laptop of yours? Throw it in the trash as it is the culmination of thousands of sham tests and correlations and is therefore clearly impossible.