What the fuck

Well, the problem is that celery isn’t food. It’s an abomination

“Second screening” is just when you’re doing something on one screen, (watching YouTube, playing a game, etc), and you’re also doing something on another screen at the same time, (browsing Lemmy, watching a move, etc)

Wooooo!

Wow! Thanks for the PSA!

I use fish as my shell because it’s the easiest to work with, but I basically always script with sh or sometimes bash

Abc def ghi jkl mno pqr stu vwx yz

Is that a dildo?

I do it because it changes the texture of the toothpaste ever so slightly, making it more smooth and pleasant

o7 to some great people. I hope they have a wonderful departure

Damn, this is actually really cool

You can use MeTube for this as well

This is crazy

We use the All-Clad non stick teflon brand, which has worked great for dozens of years. All of their pans come with a lifetime warranty that can be used multiple times. So if it starts peeling, just get a new one for free

Sooo does this imply that “I” want all of them?

Then replace every time I said “bite” with “someone died”. That doesn’t change anything about my argument or the validity of it.

In your car example, that is exactly wrong, let’s say that 99 out of 100 cars are Toyota Corollas, and as a whole, they get in 50 fatal accidents every year, but the remaining 1 car is a Ford F150 which got in 1 fatal accident every year. Does this mean that corollas are more dangerous? No! It just means that there are more corollas and therefore more opportunities to kill.

The correct way to represent this is as a percentage of each car brand. 50 accidents divided by 99 corollas is a little less than 50%. 1 accidents divided by 1 F150 is about 100%. According to this, F150’s are actually more dangerous because 100% of them get in fatal accidents, whereas only 50% of corollas get in fatal accidents.

Good on you for looking into the actual data, but the problem is that this specific graphic isn’t showing the actual data. The only reason it looks correct is by coincidence.

I totally agree with that. The problem is that this graphic doesn’t represent it. The only reason that this graphic looks correct is coincidental. The fact that it’s not an equal #/each is exactly what I want to be shown, but the problem is that this graphic doesn’t show that

You haven’t made any argument against the information presented. You will not get a response from me unless you actually respond instead of repeating the same statement.

What? The number of dogs absolutely matters. This is like, basic statistics.

Again, what we’re shown here is the number of fatal injuries, but we don’t necessarily know the distribution of dog breeds. Imagine testing this by putting a child in a room with one of each breed of dog and seeing if they get attacked, except with one breed we put in 200 dogs instead of just one, odds are that yeah, one (or multiple) of those dogs is aggressive because there’s so many of them.

This example is basically what the data above represents, it doesn’t consider that maybe pits actually very rarely bite people, but there’s just so many pits that more bites happen.

It is my personal opinion that pits are a more dangerous breed, but I won’t let that cloud my vision of accurately representing data.

I think this graphic should also be taking into account the number of owned dogs by breed, kinda like per capita. Because what if almost everyone owns pit bulls, and all the others are just outliers, then yeah, most attacks are by pit bulls because there’s more of them.

In my opinion, this would probably actually make pits look even worse, but whatever end result would actually be more representative of real data