I mean if you know for sure that you’re definitely going to visit between 8 and 12 times, no more and no less then you may as well save $5 and buy as 12-visit pass, but obviously if you’re just going to keep indefinitely buying a new pass whenever the old one runs out then no.
Also possibly matters if there’s a window to use the visits.
7 visits in a one month window vs 12 visits in a three month window could also make the 12-visit pass more attractive for once-a-weekers.
I thought that too but they said you can transfer either 7 or 12 visit pass to another person, as long as they’re all used within 12 months. We’ll use it for when guests visit from out-of-town (my sister is coming from Australia for a couple of weeks soon and the gym has 75 foot pool).
Yeah, if both are good for 12 months that’s pretty dumb.
I’m not going to mention it to them until after I’ve used up the 7-visit deal.
Oh, if it’s a one time thing and then the price goes up significantly then that could also make sense.
A yoga place I went to had pricing like that.
It was like ordinarily $40 a month. But they had two introductory specials: one month for $20 or three months for $80.
But if you’re switching to $40 a month when your introductory special runs out then you want three months for $80 if you’re pretty sure you’ll be there the whole three months.
I mean I don’t recall if those were the exact prices, but it was that idea. What I initially chalked up to innumeracy was actually not.
Doesn’t quite fit the thread, but close enough…
Those are expensive grapes.
Maybe they’re so expensive because they started out as seed-full-grapes and they hired someone to extract the seeds from each individual grape.
Of course, it’s just a formatting issue.
Inside the email is this:
From a Guardian article. The math isn’t mathing here.
…shows the vice-president and Democratic nominee at 48.2%, compared with 44.4% for Trump, the Republican candidate and former president – giving Harris a 3.6-point advantage.
Harris is at 48.15% (rounded to 48.2%)
Trump is at 44.49% (truncated to 44.4%)
Difference is 3.66% (truncated to 3.6%)
Figured it was some double-rounding going on. Still sloppy and misleading imo.
Another possibility. Certainly bad math.
The extra 0.2% are the ballots that go missing in Milwaukee after the accidental fire (or was that a plot point in Succession?).
reporter today in Fl mentioned like 3.2M homes without power.
“That’s homes. when you consider how many people live in each house, the number of people affected goes up exponentially.”
i mean, i suppose it does, but it isn’t a great use of exponential growth, is it?
yes and no, as I know a lot of people evacuated
First time I saw that one, I thought about posting it because so many of my friends post the other stupid calendar ones.
This set of numbers falling on these days of the week hasn’t happened in 400 years.
Um, there are only 14 possible calendars and they happen pretty regularly.
I hadn’t even pondered the 666 years points. Never before, and bot in 2024, is Halloween on Friday the 13th
One in three women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year, according to the American Cancer Society – and Danielle Fishel is one of them.
Seems like a remark intended for humor.
That people believe it and pass it on as Truth is pretty sad.
Without knowing the intelligence of the person you got this from, i cannot definitively call this innumeracy.
I think it’s funny, FWIW. Other posters might not.
That’s pretty shocking…innumeracy, that is. The actual study says that nearly 1 in 3 new cancers for women are breast cancer. The way they’ve written it would suggest that the average woman would be diagnosed with breast cancer 20 times in their lifetime.
A friend posted the graphic below. She is a teacher in the Orange County Public Schools (OCPS). Her comment was “decimals matter”.
This is from the school boards press release. Notice the cost of living raise in each (I’ve highlighted it in the quote from the release. It is the 4th bullet in the graphic.
School Board approved CTA contract for 2024-25 salary increases & contract language (Subject to ratification)
The compensation package represents a two percent increase to instructional payroll. This package increases starting salary from $49,375 to $49,475 for teachers and from $58,293 to $58,410 for school psychologists; provides a cost of living adjustment of 0.20% for all instructional personnel and provides state-mandated performance pay of an additional 2.05% for teachers rated as “Highly Effective” for 2023-24 and an additional 1.50% for teachers rated as “Effective” for 2023-24. In addition, the parties reached agreement on a one-year extension of the retention supplement and select supplements. There are also language changes in Articles I, IV, VI, VII, VIII, X, XIII, XXIV, XV, XVI, XVII, and XVIII, and Appendices A, A-2, A-5, A-6 and C. If ratified, these increases will pay retroactively to the first duty day of the employee’s work year for the 2024-25 school year.
