• Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    156
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    % per 100k? This person is making a valid point, but it’s undermined somewhat by the fact they’ve clearly fucked up something.

        • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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.

          • parody@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            4 months 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

            • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              You’re not wrong. I’m just saying, if you want to make that point, you should compare per capita.

      • binarytobis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        .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.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          0.2 people, not percentage. That was what they were trying to straighten out because percent per 100k doesn’t make sense.

    • ryedaft@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Eh, the population difference is less than one order of magnitude and the difference in homelessness is two orders of magnitude.

      • hikaru755@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s not about that, it’s about “% per 100k” making no sense as a unit. It’s either just %, or an absolute number per 100k. Mixing both together like this makes it seem like you’ve clearly messed something up and don’t quite understand what you’re actually talking about.