3 ms·
I wouldn't consider 28 "many" in a context where it's less than one in a million. (https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/lightning/victimdata/infographic.html https://
by jefftk 4y ago
I wouldn't consider 28 "many" in a context where it's less than one in a million.
(https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/lightning/victimdata/infographic.html https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/lightning/victimdata/infograph...)
- Godel_unicode 4y agoThat is the point that gp is making. Many has no definition and many (see what I did there?) disagree about where it’s appropriate.
- jefftk 4y agoI don't think it's even technically true in the lightning case
- Godel_unicode 4y agoWe’ve achieved recursion. Edit: how can something be “technically” true if the word has no definition?