▲ 1592 ▼ Sorry bout your heart (discuss.online) submitted 1 year ago by bytesonbike@discuss.online to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world 176 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 120 points 1 year ago* (2 children) According to this, per 10,000 people: Japan: 0.2 US: 19.5 https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/homelessness-by-country permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 year ago (1 child) That's what I figured they meant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] parody@lemmings.world 13 points 1 year ago Ya might be a good point but it’s a distracting mess Thankfully we already know a little bit about both of our situations so we get the gist permalink fedilink source parent [–] msage@programming.dev 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) US population: ~350M Japan population: ~125M Not even 3x as much. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago You're not wrong. I'm just saying, if you want to make that point, you should compare per capita. permalink fedilink source parent [–] binarytobis@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) .2% per year? So we should expect about 10% of people to be murdered by 50? I was going to say .2% is better than I thought, but that’s pretty dire. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jj4211@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago 0.2 people, not percentage. That was what they were trying to straighten out because percent per 100k doesn't make sense. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 year ago (1 child) That's what I figured they meant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] parody@lemmings.world 13 points 1 year ago Ya might be a good point but it’s a distracting mess Thankfully we already know a little bit about both of our situations so we get the gist permalink fedilink source parent [–] msage@programming.dev 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) US population: ~350M Japan population: ~125M Not even 3x as much. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago You're not wrong. I'm just saying, if you want to make that point, you should compare per capita. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] parody@lemmings.world 13 points 1 year ago Ya might be a good point but it’s a distracting mess Thankfully we already know a little bit about both of our situations so we get the gist permalink fedilink source parent [–] msage@programming.dev 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) US population: ~350M Japan population: ~125M Not even 3x as much. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago You're not wrong. I'm just saying, if you want to make that point, you should compare per capita. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] parody@lemmings.world 13 points 1 year ago Ya might be a good point but it’s a distracting mess Thankfully we already know a little bit about both of our situations so we get the gist permalink fedilink source parent
[–] msage@programming.dev 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) US population: ~350M Japan population: ~125M Not even 3x as much. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago You're not wrong. I'm just saying, if you want to make that point, you should compare per capita. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago You're not wrong. I'm just saying, if you want to make that point, you should compare per capita. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] binarytobis@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 child) .2% per year? So we should expect about 10% of people to be murdered by 50? I was going to say .2% is better than I thought, but that’s pretty dire. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] jj4211@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago 0.2 people, not percentage. That was what they were trying to straighten out because percent per 100k doesn't make sense. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago 0.2 people, not percentage. That was what they were trying to straighten out because percent per 100k doesn't make sense. permalink fedilink source parent