you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 173 points 1 year ago (2 children)

% per 100k? This person is making a valid point, but it's undermined somewhat by the fact they've clearly fucked up something.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 120 points 1 year ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That's what I figured they meant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Yeah, but those other stats are raw numbers. Okay, we have a higher number of unhoused people and food-insecure people, but we also have a higher number of people, period. If you wanna make a point, it has to be per capita. I like how the first stat got this right, but the others did not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Eh, the population difference is less than one order of magnitude and the difference in homelessness is two orders of magnitude.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It's not about that, it's about "% per 100k" making no sense as a unit. It's either just %, or an absolute number per 100k. Mixing both together like this makes it seem like you've clearly messed something up and don't quite understand what you're actually talking about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Literally 5.7 per 100 per 100,000.

    Neither had cake nor ate it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • As soon as you get to the "per 100" part you can stop. After that, it doesn't matter if it's per 100,000, per 8,759,016, or per 10.

    So the fact that they mixed up something so basic makes you question the number entirely. Their point is valid, but undermined by their lack of basic math skills.

  • source
  • parent