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?
75% more than what?
More than in 2009.
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.
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.
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?
deleted by creator
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?