Pornhub Traffic Dropped by 10% the Day Fallout 4 Came Out

[FPLOON]

Jokes on you, Pornhub! I was using the Hanster around that time, which made my wasteland a bit more snowy if I do say so myself...

Other than that, this does give a whole new context to the song "The Wanderer"...

 

[Thaluikhain]

So... They're saying Fallout players are a bunch of wankers?

Goddamnit, I came in here just to post that.

 

[camazotz]

All I got out of this is that 90% of pornhubbers are not gamers. Or not dedicated, anyway.

Then, geezer that I am, had to figure out what pornhub was. Now back to Fallout 4.

 

[FalloutJack]

Apparently, war never changes...but our libido does!

 

[blue heartless]

Fallout 4? Sorry Pornhub, wait to see what happens when Half-Chub 3 comes.

 

[Recusant]

Now, it's important to remember that correlation does not always imply causation.

This is the third time I've heard this in the past four days, and I'm starting to wonder if it's all some elaborate joke. Assuming it's not, let me state (not merely to Mister Sklar, but to everyone) unequivocally, now and forever, that correlation DOES imply causation, wholly and absolutely. If you touch the oven and burn your hand, that's a pretty strong implication that the oven is turned on. This might not be the case; the oven could be on fire, or it could have spontaneously turned into a portal to the furnace, or you could be suffering from unusually specific brain damage, but most likely, the oven's on, and the vastly higher likelihood of that first scenario relative to the other three means that the evidence pretty strongly points in that direction. What correlation does not is equal causation; burning your hand on the over does not prove that it is on, but it certainly does suggest it, which is all that "imply" really means.

For the sake of the future generations you do not wish to have travel back to today and kill you for your dictionary crimes, don't let "imply" become another "literally".

As to the news itself: does Fallout 4 not have a pause function?

The revenue from skiing facilities in USA and number of people who died from being tangled in bedsheets is 0.97 (perfect correlation would be 1.00). Are you saying one causes the other?

Spoiler

Absolutely not. I'm saying that if you have two... aspects, let's call them aspects (as neither facility revenue nor number of bedsheet deaths can be called "events") that occur in rapid succession or bear the same results, this suggests (however tentatively and/or briefly) that there is a connection. It's not proof of one, it's not even evidence of one, but it is a suggestion.

The word you're missing here is "always". Correlation is a good point to start when investigating a phenomenon, but it's far from the best. Alzheimer's disease is characterized by the accumulation of something called amyloid plaques in the brain and worse cases have shown a correlation with more plaque. Years of research (and probably billions) has gone into finding drugs that would reduce the amount of plaque. Recent discoveries indicate that amyloid plaque does not cause Alzheimer's disease and the drugs we've spent money and resources developing only treats a symptom. Correlation does not always imply causation. This is the danger of simplifying it to correlation = causation.

I can find countless of examples like this. If you want to correct someone, make sure that you're not far far far far FAR from being right.

Likewise. Catch is, I'm completely right- though perhaps phrasing my point poorly. This is not a question (at least on my part) of the scientific method, or indeed of the fundamental nature of reality, but of semantics. "Equals" and "implies" are different words that mean different things. Moving from "correlation implies causation" to "correlation equals causation" is simplifying it ideologically, but not verbally; again, different words that mean different things. If you're looking for concrete proof of a link between two things and start from simple correlative grounds, the sheer number of seemingly random similarities will get you few positive results; I do not for an instant dispute this. Correlation does not equal causation. However, if you reverse the process and look for a correlation in aspects that cause other aspects, you will find a correlation rate of 100% (though not necessarily one that reveals itself with only a casual glance); aspects affect the things they effect. Or, to put it more succinctly, correlation implies causation.

 

[Recusant]

unequivocally, now and forever, that correlation DOES imply causation, wholly and absolutely.

When they turned on the LHC, we started experience more earthquakes. That would suggest we can predict earthquakes, which we can't. Sorry, but you're wrong.

Turning on the LHC and experiencing more earthquakes wouldn't suggest that we could predict them; it would suggest that turning on the LHC causes them. Sorry, but I'm right.

 

[Yopaz]

Now, it's important to remember that correlation does not always imply causation.

This is the third time I've heard this in the past four days, and I'm starting to wonder if it's all some elaborate joke. Assuming it's not, let me state (not merely to Mister Sklar, but to everyone) unequivocally, now and forever, that correlation DOES imply causation, wholly and absolutely. If you touch the oven and burn your hand, that's a pretty strong implication that the oven is turned on. This might not be the case; the oven could be on fire, or it could have spontaneously turned into a portal to the furnace, or you could be suffering from unusually specific brain damage, but most likely, the oven's on, and the vastly higher likelihood of that first scenario relative to the other three means that the evidence pretty strongly points in that direction. What correlation does not is equal causation; burning your hand on the over does not prove that it is on, but it certainly does suggest it, which is all that "imply" really means.

For the sake of the future generations you do not wish to have travel back to today and kill you for your dictionary crimes, don't let "imply" become another "literally".

As to the news itself: does Fallout 4 not have a pause function?

The revenue from skiing facilities in USA and number of people who died from being tangled in bedsheets is 0.97 (perfect correlation would be 1.00). Are you saying one causes the other?

Spoiler

Absolutely not. I'm saying that if you have two... aspects, let's call them aspects (as neither facility revenue nor number of bedsheet deaths can be called "events") that occur in rapid succession or bear the same results, this suggests (however tentatively and/or briefly) that there is a connection. It's not proof of one, it's not even evidence of one, but it is a suggestion.

The word you're missing here is "always". Correlation is a good point to start when investigating a phenomenon, but it's far from the best. Alzheimer's disease is characterized by the accumulation of something called amyloid plaques in the brain and worse cases have shown a correlation with more plaque. Years of research (and probably billions) has gone into finding drugs that would reduce the amount of plaque. Recent discoveries indicate that amyloid plaque does not cause Alzheimer's disease and the drugs we've spent money and resources developing only treats a symptom. Correlation does not always imply causation. This is the danger of simplifying it to correlation = causation.

I can find countless of examples like this. If you want to correct someone, make sure that you're not far far far far FAR from being right.

Likewise. Catch is, I'm completely right- though perhaps phrasing my point poorly. This is not a question (at least on my part) of the scientific method, or indeed of the fundamental nature of reality, but of semantics. "Equals" and "implies" are different words that mean different things. Moving from "correlation implies causation" to "correlation equals causation" is simplifying it ideologically, but not verbally; again, different words that mean different things. If you're looking for concrete proof of a link between two things and start from simple correlative grounds, the sheer number of seemingly random similarities will get you few positive results; I do not for an instant dispute this. Correlation does not equal causation. However, if you reverse the process and look for a correlation in aspects that cause other aspects, you will find a correlation rate of 100% (though not necessarily one that reveals itself with only a casual glance); aspects affect the things they effect. Or, to put it more succinctly, correlation implies causation.

If you go back and read the part you quoted he said it doesn't ALWAYS imply causation. Revenue from skiing facilities and deaths by bedsheets... does it imply causation or does it seem completely random? If it does, explain how it implies causation because if you are right and the article is wrong it ALWAYS implies causation.

Edit: I also mentioned other things. There is a negative correlation between number of sea pirates and tsunamis. Does that imply causation in any way? It's fine to admit that you're wrong and be over with it rather than make yourself even more wrong. You are so clearly wrong. I have given you an example of things completely unconnected from each other that have a near perfect correlation. Only by stretching credulity can we start to imply causation. It doesn't imply causation if we have to make up a scenario after seeing a correlation.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Just wait til some adult companies decide to combine the two together given to the amount of rule 34 of Fallout there is in general.

Guess it shows people would rather played a new game than to go to that site in general.

 

[Rack]

For the sake of the future generations you do not wish to have travel back to today and kill you for your dictionary crimes, don't let "imply" become another "literally".

Actually you have this slightly backwards. The phrase "correlation does not imply causation" is an old one grounded in statistics where the word "imply" has the meaning "to involve as a necessary circumstance" Removing that meaning of the word imply would be a corruption of language.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Turning on the LHC and experiencing more earthquakes wouldn't suggest that we could predict them; it would suggest that turning on the LHC causes them. Sorry, but I'm right.

You do know we experienced earthquakes before the LHC was turned on yeah?

 

[Gatlank]

I'm guessing here but when there's a major sport event on tv the traffic on Pornhub will also drop or when the new Star Wars movies come out.
Honestly i dont know why someone even bothered to research this or why is it even "news" unless such thing only happens due to Fallout 4.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

This is going up in my Top 5 Best News Ever.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I guess people just really love their roleplaying games.

 

[LetalisK]

Isn't this what dual monitors are for?

I'd say I'm part of the statistic, butt I've done it since Fallout came out and I don't go to Pornhub. Cause you know, I like my videos to be longer than three minutes.

Okay Mr. Four Minutes. No need to brag.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I like my videos to be longer than three minutes.

...why? It's not you last that long anyways


OT: Not surprised, they probably just doubled up the next day on the fapping...

*not like I'd know or anything*

 

[Lufia Erim]

I'd say I'm part of the statistic, butt I've done it since Fallout came out and I don't go to Pornhub. Cause you know, I like my videos to be longer than three minutes.

Back in my day all we had were dirty magazines. AND WE LIKED IT.!

 

[camazotz]

Apparently, war never changes...but our libido does!

Marriage and kids will do that.

 

[camazotz]

I'd say I'm part of the statistic, butt I've done it since Fallout came out and I don't go to Pornhub. Cause you know, I like my videos to be longer than three minutes.

Back in my dad all we had were dirty magazines. AND WE LIKED IT.!

Please tell me that was a typo.