8 ms·
It's because percentages are more misleading for humans than "x-times". 95% and 97% sound very close, right? They're not. 95% is a 20x reduction, while 97% is a
by phailhaus 6y ago
It's because percentages are more misleading for humans than "x-times". 95% and 97% sound very close, right? They're not. 95% is a 20x reduction, while 97% is a 30x reduction. Percentages create a singularity at 100, which is why the effect is more pronounced the closer you get to 100.
It's just like how saying something is "95% effective" sounds very convincing until you realize that's a 1-in-20 failure rate.
- function_seven 6y agoMy favorite example of this were the labels on lunch meats back in the day. They'd say things like, "97% Fat Free!", or "98% Fat Free!". So one of them had 50% more fat than the other, but they both look pretty close to "Fat Free"