A new NYT analysis found that anyone shorter than 5-foot-6 — about half of American adults — would frequently be knocked to the ground in front of today's average vehicle.
So in the course of seventeen years (since 2009), fewer than twice the number of people have been killed than in 2009 alone? That’s either a massive improvement, or something terrible was happening in 2009.
“Since 2009” would refer to the span of seventeen years since 2009.
75% more implies an increase of 75% (meaning a total of 175%, equivalent to 1.75×, or just shy of 2×) over some other quantity.
What is that other quantity? Surely not the deaths just in the year 2009. Is it the seventeen years prior to 2009? Something else? The article never appears to actually specify.
No, the problem is you’re taking a very niche stance in service of an interpretation of an ambiguous title that probably meant something entirely different, presumably because you enjoy a fight?
Everyone else but you went with the “probably” instead of this war path you’re on against the person who wrote the title for not being clear enough.
I’m asking what’s being compared. It’s unclear and not specified. I don’t want to make a poor assumption. That is all. Why are you offended by that? What are you imagining I’m asking?
My question implies that there is no guess that seems reasonable. Successive 17-year periods is a highly unusual method for measurement, so that doesn’t really make sense. Or am I simply missing something otherwise more obvious? Why not share that information instead of being condescending?
And if “you all” know that it’s unclear, why not simply agree that it’s unclear in the first place?
My question implies that there is no guess that seems reasonable.
Sorry to hear that, but it seems to be a problem unique to you.
Successive 17-year periods is a highly unusual method for measurement, so that doesn’t really make sense. Or am I simply missing something otherwise more obvious?
It’s simply arbitrary. As they say, “it’s not that deep.” There is no standard period for measuring such a thing. 17 is weird, but then what’s less weird about 5, 10, 15, 20, or 50? That they’re evenly divisible by 5?
Why not share that information instead of being condescending?
I wasn’t trying to be condescending, I’m just pointing out that you are the person who has stubbornly refused to make a reasonable conclusion. If that gives offense, perhaps you should consider whether or not your stance makes any sense before decrying someone pointing out that your stance doesn’t make any sense?
If I’m being less pleasant as this conversation goes on, maybe it’s because you keep down-voting all of my replies despite my being cordial in helping you understand why people are dog-piling you?
And if “you all” know that it’s unclear, why not simply agree that it’s unclear in the first place?
… reread that sentence a few times and tell me if it isn’t hilariously ironic to the point I’m starting to think you’re a rage-baiter and heavily considering a block.
On the off-chance you’re not a rage-baiter, here’s why it’s ironic:
You are complaining I did not “agree that it’s unclear in the first place” in spite of the fact that I literally agreed with you in the first message I wrote to you.
So in the course of seventeen years (since 2009), fewer than twice the number of people have been killed than in 2009 alone? That’s either a massive improvement, or something terrible was happening in 2009.
Math is clearly not your strong point. Or logic.
No, the problem is that I can actually read.
“Since 2009” would refer to the span of seventeen years since 2009.
75% more implies an increase of 75% (meaning a total of 175%, equivalent to 1.75×, or just shy of 2×) over some other quantity.
What is that other quantity? Surely not the deaths just in the year 2009. Is it the seventeen years prior to 2009? Something else? The article never appears to actually specify.
No, the problem is you’re taking a very niche stance in service of an interpretation of an ambiguous title that probably meant something entirely different, presumably because you enjoy a fight?
Everyone else but you went with the “probably” instead of this war path you’re on against the person who wrote the title for not being clear enough.
I’m asking what’s being compared. It’s unclear and not specified. I don’t want to make a poor assumption. That is all. Why are you offended by that? What are you imagining I’m asking?
As I said, we all know it’s unclear, but the rest of us made a reasonable conclusion as to what they meant.
My question implies that there is no guess that seems reasonable. Successive 17-year periods is a highly unusual method for measurement, so that doesn’t really make sense. Or am I simply missing something otherwise more obvious? Why not share that information instead of being condescending?
And if “you all” know that it’s unclear, why not simply agree that it’s unclear in the first place?
Sorry to hear that, but it seems to be a problem unique to you.
It’s simply arbitrary. As they say, “it’s not that deep.” There is no standard period for measuring such a thing. 17 is weird, but then what’s less weird about 5, 10, 15, 20, or 50? That they’re evenly divisible by 5?
I wasn’t trying to be condescending, I’m just pointing out that you are the person who has stubbornly refused to make a reasonable conclusion. If that gives offense, perhaps you should consider whether or not your stance makes any sense before decrying someone pointing out that your stance doesn’t make any sense?
If I’m being less pleasant as this conversation goes on, maybe it’s because you keep down-voting all of my replies despite my being cordial in helping you understand why people are dog-piling you?
… reread that sentence a few times and tell me if it isn’t hilariously ironic to the point I’m starting to think you’re a rage-baiter and heavily considering a block.
On the off-chance you’re not a rage-baiter, here’s why it’s ironic:
You are complaining I did not “agree that it’s unclear in the first place” in spite of the fact that I literally agreed with you in the first message I wrote to you.
I’m referring to everyone in this thread and not the singular you. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
And no, assuming that traffic casualties are consistently measured in seventeen-year intervals is not reasonable.
Mate, the article links to the study, rather than be pedantic about the title you could read the study and figure out how they did the math yourself.
You don’t think it’s valid to criticize a misleading headline?
Not how you’re doing it.
That’s not how percentages work.
+75% does not equal 175%.
Schools teach percentages at the age of 10… ouch.
Yes, it does. X + (75% × X) = (100% × X) + (75% × X) = (100% + 75%) × X = 175% × X
If you started with $100, and ended up with 75% more, how much money would you have ended up with?