solo@piefed.social to movies@piefed.socialEnglish · 2 days agoFilms more likely to star an actor called Chris or a talking animal than a woman over 60, study findswww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square37fedilinkarrow-up1252file-textcross-posted to: nottheonion@sh.itjust.works
arrow-up1252external-linkFilms more likely to star an actor called Chris or a talking animal than a woman over 60, study findswww.theguardian.comsolo@piefed.social to movies@piefed.socialEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square37fedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: nottheonion@sh.itjust.works
minus-squareWindex007@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10·2 days agoIn one case you’re using subtraction to come to a conclusion (6-5 = 1) In another case you’re using division (20/5 = 4). If you’re being internally consistent, you should have landed at “1% and 15%”, or “1.2x and 4x”. The latter is the one that best describes what you’re aiming for, I think.
minus-squareagent_nycto@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 day agoEither way my point is that this article is misleading a bit
minus-squareWrufieotnak@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 day agoAnd to be extra pedantic, it should be 1/15 percent points, not percent. Percentage wise it would be 20/400% more.
In one case you’re using subtraction to come to a conclusion (6-5 = 1) In another case you’re using division (20/5 = 4).
If you’re being internally consistent, you should have landed at “1% and 15%”, or “1.2x and 4x”.
The latter is the one that best describes what you’re aiming for, I think.
Either way my point is that this article is misleading a bit
And to be extra pedantic, it should be 1/15 percent points, not percent. Percentage wise it would be 20/400% more.