>>41078171>they're not *not* correlatedBelow a certain threshold you can safely chalk a correlation as "spurious", coincidental.
Here is another chart
>post number in this thread vs. secondsfor instance, for your post the pair is
>35,41078171It also shows a slight positive correlation despite having ZERO actual correlation, because of the nature of numbers. It will never be really zero, just very close to zero like
>>41077353 was.
