Please don't take this the wrong way, I mean it to be constructive.
Please think about your headline and a little math.
If something is 1 time something else, that's considered a 100% of that thing.
Think about cash. If you start with $1 and you've got 1 time (100%) less than when started, you've got $0 left. If you've got 2 times less than when you started, you've got $2 LESS than when started, so you actually OWE $1. If you've got 10 times less, you OWE $9.
So, if the media reported that there were 10 mass shootings but the number was really 1 time ( 100% ) less, then that would mean there were NO mass shootings. Since we're talking about events, you can't actually have fewer occurrences of the events than all the events claimed.
With the words in the headline, that can only mean we've started bringing people back from the dead. I don't know if this wording is part of the 'new math' but I've noticed it being used in many places - and it's not good to propagate mistakes. We COULD say, the public is unintentionally led astray.
If I'm mistaken, I'd be interested to know about the new concept.
Please don't take this the wrong way, I mean it to be constructive.
Please think about your headline and a little math.
If something is 1 time something else, that's considered a 100% of that thing.
Think about cash. If you start with $1 and you've got 1 time (100%) less than when started, you've got $0 left. If you've got 2 times less than when you started, you've got $2 LESS than when started, so you actually OWE $1. If you've got 10 times less, you OWE $9.
So, if the media reported that there were 10 mass shootings but the number was really 1 time ( 100% ) less, then that would mean there were NO mass shootings. Since we're talking about events, you can't actually have fewer occurrences of the events than all the events claimed.
With the words in the headline, that can only mean we've started bringing people back from the dead. I don't know if this wording is part of the 'new math' but I've noticed it being used in many places - and it's not good to propagate mistakes. We COULD say, the public is unintentionally led astray.
If I'm mistaken, I'd be interested to know about the new concept.
Well said, Lee.