Minor typos in chapter 3

[rpruim]

From Chapter 3:

• defined at a particular instance in time -> Do you mean instant?
• I'm not a fan of overusing data for data frame (df is worse, since there is also a function by that name). Even for toy examples, I prefer a descriptive name. I'd reserve data only for "generic" examples and pseudo-code. Example: For the chocolate/vanilla ice cream example, I'd prefer a name like icecream or icecream_happiness. That's especially nice when encountering code chunks that reference data that has been defined in some other chunk.
• As a sneak peak, our issue here was that how the exposure was decided, if instead we randomized who ate chocolate versus vanilla ice cream we would (on average, with a large enough sample) recover the true causal effect. --> delete that.
• You can see how this falls under consistency --> You can see how this violates consistency
• One of the main ways to combat interference is change the unit under consideration. --> is to change
• Following any of the recipes in this book are unlikely to give valid answers if the causal assumptions are badly violated. -> is unlikely (Following is he subject of the sentence) or delete "Following any of" so that recipes becomes the subject.

Is it useful to record minor typos here (or somewhere else)? Is it useful to have a separate issue per chapter? If useful, I'll try to record things as I spot them.

[malcolmbarrett]

I wouldn't worry too much about typos for chapters 3-4, as they'll be getting a good overhaul very soon. But content issues or clarification requests welcome

[rpruim]

How soon? I'm starting a course next week and am planning to use this book as one of the main references. How unstable is it likely to be?

[malcolmbarrett]

Within the next couple weeks. The structure and concepts covered will be very similar.

We have tags at the top of every chapter that indicates the chapter's state and stability. I'm working on stabilizing the first 11 chapters to close to what they'll be on publication. Chapters 7-11 will also be getting changes but will be more copy edits and expansion than rewriting. Sorry for the timing but hello from Ann Arbor

(edit: I changed the status of 3 and 4 to indicate they will be going under bigger restructuring than the others)

[rpruim]

It will just make things a bit more "exciting". I suppose I could always fork the repo and host a static copy if I wanted to ;-)

How long are you going to be in Ann Arbor?

[malcolmbarrett]

I live here and am from here! (I work remotely at Stanford). I also used to live in GR.

Yes, now that you say it, I think fork&host is how people should make our content static right now, particularly when they are depending on content that is not marked as stable