4 ms·

The hospital sling was $200 according to the article. Amazon sling is $12.99 to $16.99 according to the article. So hospital sling is 12-15 times more expensi

The hospital sling was $200 according to the article. Amazon sling is $12.99 to $16.99 according to the article. So hospital sling is 12-15 times more expensive. So I suspect that the original writer of the article correctly wrote that hospital sling is 10 times more expensive. Then the editor came and decided that 10 times more expensive looks not as scandalous as 900% more expensive. The result is false precision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision and bad journalism.

jameshart 7y ago
I have no idea what you're complaining about here. If they had taken the $12.99 price (an actual exact price, with 4 actual significant figures of precision), the $200 bill (also an actual price paid, with five significant figures of precision) is actually, really-not-false-precisely, 1440% more expensive than amazon. They allowed in the article that the sling might be a bit nicer than the ones on amazon - it had some padding. So they rounded its value up to roughly $20, giving, as you suggest, 10 times more expensive, as an estimated factor. Let's assume that's only good to one sig fig. That's fine for an estimate, and consistent with the 'probably worth a bit more than the ones on Amazon, let's say somewhere between $16 and $25' methodology. "900% more expensive" is a perfectly accurate restatement of "10 times as expensive" to a single significant figure. Would you rather they went with "1000% more expensive" to make it feel more Benford's-law-comliant in its imprecision? That would surely have helped your supposed sensationalist editor, right? "900% more expensive" is literally just another way of writing "ten times as expensive". So I really don't know what kind of editorial sensationalism conspiracy you are trying to posit here. Wouldn't a sensationalist have gone with the 1440%, and nefariously rounded it up to 1500% to punch up the headline? This seems like a weak place to try to hang an argument about the innumeracy of the press....
- lightgreen 7y ago
  > "900% more expensive" is literally just another way of writing "ten times as expensive". No, it is not. Same way as "ten times more expensive" is not the same as "10.000000 times more expensive". Using percentages here implies high precision. > Would you rather they went with "1000% more expensive" "10 times more expensive" sound just right. > I really don't know what kind of editorial sensationalism conspiracy you are trying to posit here. Sorry, no sensation here. Just false precision which is a bad sign.

jameshart 7y ago

I have no idea what you're complaining about here. If they had taken the $12.99 price (an actual exact price, with 4 actual significant figures of precision), the $200 bill (also an actual price paid, with five significant figures of precision) is actually, really-not-false-precisely, 1440% more expensive than amazon. They allowed in the article that the sling might be a bit nicer than the ones on amazon - it had some padding. So they rounded its value up to roughly $20, giving, as you suggest, 10 times more expensive, as an estimated factor. Let's assume that's only good to one sig fig. That's fine for an estimate, and consistent with the 'probably worth a bit more than the ones on Amazon, let's say somewhere between $16 and $25' methodology. "900% more expensive" is a perfectly accurate restatement of "10 times as expensive" to a single significant figure. Would you rather they went with "1000% more expensive" to make it feel more Benford's-law-comliant in its imprecision? That would surely have helped your supposed sensationalist editor, right? "900% more expensive" is literally just another way of writing "ten times as expensive". So I really don't know what kind of editorial sensationalism conspiracy you are trying to posit here. Wouldn't a sensationalist have gone with the 1440%, and nefariously rounded it up to 1500% to punch up the headline? This seems like a weak place to try to hang an argument about the innumeracy of the press....

lightgreen 7y ago
> "900% more expensive" is literally just another way of writing "ten times as expensive". No, it is not. Same way as "ten times more expensive" is not the same as "10.000000 times more expensive". Using percentages here implies high precision. > Would you rather they went with "1000% more expensive" "10 times more expensive" sound just right. > I really don't know what kind of editorial sensationalism conspiracy you are trying to posit here. Sorry, no sensation here. Just false precision which is a bad sign.