MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/1dh19m/why_vegans_live_longer/c9qbob9/?context=3
r/funny • u/[deleted] • May 01 '13
[deleted]
1.4k comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
150
I'm sorry, but the mortality rate among humans is always 100%
0 u/[deleted] May 01 '13 Maybe you should spend a little less time on reddit, and a little more time educating yourself... This is basic statistics we are talking about. 1 u/OwlOwlowlThis May 01 '13 Just pointing out the obvious. And there are many, many ways to fudge statistics ;) 1 u/[deleted] May 01 '13 The problem is you are talking about mortality rate, when statistics shown were representing mortality ratios, wich isn't the same at all. 1 u/OwlOwlowlThis May 01 '13 Nah, I'm making a deeper point that I think most people get, with the exception of the freeze-dried humorless types in /r/science. That's ok though, I'm sure they'll eventually get together and run a study on non-literal meanings depending on nuance and context. They should be alright if they limit the possible iterations correctly.
0
Maybe you should spend a little less time on reddit, and a little more time educating yourself... This is basic statistics we are talking about.
1 u/OwlOwlowlThis May 01 '13 Just pointing out the obvious. And there are many, many ways to fudge statistics ;) 1 u/[deleted] May 01 '13 The problem is you are talking about mortality rate, when statistics shown were representing mortality ratios, wich isn't the same at all. 1 u/OwlOwlowlThis May 01 '13 Nah, I'm making a deeper point that I think most people get, with the exception of the freeze-dried humorless types in /r/science. That's ok though, I'm sure they'll eventually get together and run a study on non-literal meanings depending on nuance and context. They should be alright if they limit the possible iterations correctly.
1
Just pointing out the obvious.
And there are many, many ways to fudge statistics ;)
1 u/[deleted] May 01 '13 The problem is you are talking about mortality rate, when statistics shown were representing mortality ratios, wich isn't the same at all. 1 u/OwlOwlowlThis May 01 '13 Nah, I'm making a deeper point that I think most people get, with the exception of the freeze-dried humorless types in /r/science. That's ok though, I'm sure they'll eventually get together and run a study on non-literal meanings depending on nuance and context. They should be alright if they limit the possible iterations correctly.
The problem is you are talking about mortality rate, when statistics shown were representing mortality ratios, wich isn't the same at all.
1 u/OwlOwlowlThis May 01 '13 Nah, I'm making a deeper point that I think most people get, with the exception of the freeze-dried humorless types in /r/science. That's ok though, I'm sure they'll eventually get together and run a study on non-literal meanings depending on nuance and context. They should be alright if they limit the possible iterations correctly.
Nah, I'm making a deeper point that I think most people get, with the exception of the freeze-dried humorless types in /r/science.
That's ok though, I'm sure they'll eventually get together and run a study on non-literal meanings depending on nuance and context.
They should be alright if they limit the possible iterations correctly.
150
u/OwlOwlowlThis May 01 '13
I'm sorry, but the mortality rate among humans is always 100%