Bringing back a classic AO thread.

Granted - this isn’t really innumeracy, but still…

One of the charter schools in my area has several campuses. They have a “COVID-19 Dashboard” where they show the numbers of cases for the different campuses. The dashboard has 4 columns: Campus, Active Cases, Percent of Campus Population, and Rate per 100 Individuals.

Not surprisingly - the 3rd and 4th columns have the exact same numbers in them.


I nominate all the players projecting probabilities of a deck in the Secret Hitler game.

Especially . . . S.Morgenstern.

HEY! :japanese_ogre: :izakaya_lantern: :drop_of_blood:

With a thread title Innumeracy, it is a surprise they have the exact same numbers.

1 Like

Good place to put this.

From a Walmart breakfast danish container:

:laughing: This is why my parents would have either my sister or me split the thing in half and the other one got to choose their half, otherwise you get these kinds of 16/37 halves



yes, if you took a 1/2 danish and rounded it by removing the corners, you might lower it to 160 calories.

The sodium counts are 160/370 as well. :face_with_raised_eyebrow: :thinking:

They’re acknowledging they’re excessively dry and thus 14% crumb loss if cut in half?

Do you expend 50 calories trying to cut the damn thing in half?

From Glassdoor (not actuarial salaries)


#1. lol @ the “top end of the scale” is only $149k.

#2. Let the average burger flipper see this and see how long it takes for this number to drop . . .

Maybe not in emerald - I can’t see anywhere where the way they calculated the number is described - but “more than 90% less” is a ridiculously convoluted way of presenting any information. I’m not entirely sure what it even means.

It probably means that the average wealth for Black women is less than 10% of the average wealth for White men in America, but more than 90% less is a more compelling phrase than the other because people are used to discount language from retail, half off, 75% off, etc, so the wording leans into that understanding, imo. I’m “more” interested in their definition of American/America :wink: (only interested enough to comment, not actually click and read, I’m definitely doing the “didn’t even read the article, just the title” commenting here). It’s unlikely to be all of the americas, and most likely to be U.S. but it’s also ambiguous.

I’m guessing that the people who have no additional pay are not part of the additional pay average but they are in the base pay and total pay.

Which is, of course, preposterous. They should be averaged into the additional pay at $0.

But this error would explain those numbers.

Yeah, because aren’t most people’s wealth at least more than 90% less than American White Men?

BTW, they use median rather than mean wealth in determining this.

Powell now says that no reasonable person believed her.

That argument would be especially interesting if same court had to determine whehter Trump believed her.

1 Like