Here’s the thing that reactionaries don’t seem to get: capitalism is going to fail. The post-war boom was an anomaly, there’s no going back to it. If you read financial papers, economists know there’s another crash on the horizon. And the economy isn’t going to be any nicer to you because you’ve repeated “Communism killed 100,000,000 people” ad nauseam. There is only one way for working people to be in control of their fate, and that way is socialism.
For anyone wondering, this is amazing enrichment for the animal and a great way to involve guests! The lions aren’t forced to play with the rope if they don’t want to, and these guys (and anyone else who tries this out) have an awesome close up and hands on experience, all without having to come in direct contact with the cat!
Heres the thing you gotta understand about statistics.
“Increases your chances by 80%” does not mean “there is now an 80% chance”.
If your chances were previously 10%, your chances are now 18%, not 90%.
if your chances were roughly 1%, they’re now just slightly less than 2%.
thats how that works.
Wow I don’t understand math at all
‘if you have a baby after 35, the chance of deformities goes up by 100%’ is a line I hear alot.
It goes up from .5% to 1%
To simplify: It’s the percent amount of the current factor.
In the starting example: 10% is the factor. 80% of 10 is 8, and then add together (increase by that): 10 + 8 = 18. Thus an 80% increase of 10% is 18%.
Similarly: 1% is the factor, it’s really the same as 10, just the decimal stepped over (10.0%, 1.00% // I know that isn’t really how numbers work, I’m just doing this for the visual). And thus, 80% of 1% then adding it on would be basically 1.8%
And finally, .5%. 100% of .5 is just that, ‘point 5′, or a half a percent. Two halves make a whole, and thus a single percent or ‘1%’.
Pretty easy to be honest… Though, it’s easy to get caught up in the statement and forget that, sometimes even when you know better.
Practical, every day use of maths: Not being dooped by dipshit marketing teams
Posts like this make me remember i was actually competent at maths unlike most of this site
It’s not a matter of being competent at math, rather it’s the intentional use of relative statistics in order to make something out to be more significant than it actually is. So in the original example, the absolute statistic changes from 1% to slightly less than 2%. If you’re publishing a paper or trying to sell news stories about something, you aren’t gonna make sales with so insignificant of a figure. So you say that it increased 80% to get people’s attention
