3 ms·
Correct, my statistical experiment with a sample of 1 is more relevant than several, independent journalists doing investigations. I will better myself.
by AdrianB1 4y ago
Correct, my statistical experiment with a sample of 1 is more relevant than several, independent journalists doing investigations. I will better myself.
- scrollaway 4y agoIf your journalists are calling something a “major problem” and you’re not seeing a single instance of it, I too got some independent news for you.
- AdrianB1 4y agoI did see that with my own eyes, I was just telling this is not mandatory for me to believe it, I heard it from too many sources, some quite reliable. I can know things that I did not personally encounter, it is a human characteristic.
- lucb1e 4y agoThere's a difference between (1) a statistical survey, (2) "the news found it somewhere and needed clickbait to stay in business", and (3) regular people are reporting seeing it. Of course, properly collected statistics is best, but short of that, I'd be more inclined to believe it's widespread if ordinary people are reporting it's around them. It's the news' job to go around and look for a story, so they're likely to find it somewhere. Neither is proper proof, only statistical survey would be, but a combination of 2 and 3 is close enough for me and you've already said it was on the news, thus my question.