>>53605308While you were wrong about me being retarded, I'm clearly right about you being retarded. The graph pre_CCVid is irrelevant so I'm not sure why you're harping so heavily on that. The only thing you can make an argument for is the 2/23 to 5/03 period being roughly a flatline. The graph begins to go down again after 5/03, over 2 months before Tempus was even announced, let alone when they debuted to the collab spam happened.
>trendlines in the pic are at fixed time intervals, not every time line goes up, so they're completely validThat only matters if you specifically want to show the trend for that specific interval. Considering the question was if Tempus caused EN's decline, multiple lines aren't needed as seen in
>>53605620>>53605795The problem with this example is that there's no context at all. This is better.
