• Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The 1000+ number was just a random number. It was simply to highlight that the article never mentioned the total numbers sampled, just the total numbers found to have the high levels.

    I don’t doubt it was 44 out of 44, or that 44 out of 1000 is a lot as well, it simply wasn’t the point that I was trying to make.

    • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      My point isn’t about 1000 or 10000. It’s that we shouldn’t make assumptions as to the interpretation of statistical characteristics without sufficient additional data.