> Which again, has been the case for a very long time. We all seem to be admitting that it's a bad, misleading statistic. So why are we so committed to keeping

> Which again, has been the case for a very long time. We all seem to be admitting that it's a bad, misleading statistic. So why are we so committed to keeping it around forever? Why not change the definition? People say "for historical comparison", but what's the point of a historical comparison of a statistic that we all admit now is bad and misleading? The fact that something has always been done a certain way is no justification for continuing to do it, especially if the initial decision was misguided in some way.