this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
73 points (84.8% liked)

World News

32075 readers
941 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 points 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.