4 ms·

There's 7.8 billion people in the world, so 3.6 billion qualifies as "most". It's also worth noting we're in a global food crisis which started in 2020 and got

by kodah 3y ago

There's 7.8 billion people in the world, so 3.6 billion qualifies as "most". It's also worth noting we're in a global food crisis which started in 2020 and got worse in 2021. It continues to grow year over year. Ukraine and Russia were also the two biggest cereal providers, which apparently has affected these numbers significantly. That's just food safety though, for nutrition the numbers are worse. https://www.who.int/news/item/06-07-2022-un-report--global-hunger-numbers-rose-to-as-many-as-828-million-in-2021 https://www.who.int/news/item/06-07-2022-un-report--global-h...

spiderice 3y ago
> There's 7.8 billion people in the world, so 3.6 billion qualifies as "most". Do I have an incorrect understanding of the word "most"?
foo-bar-bat 3y ago
It's probably more like 7.9 now. Regardless how does 3.6:7.8 ie 46% constitute a majority? Most is a word. Words have meaning. Respectfully, what you said would be less wrong if you had used the word many.
- carschno 3y ago
  In the end, however, it hardly matters whether it is 46% or 51% percent. The exact wording by the GP may have been inaccurate, but the numbers support the underlying point: sanitation very far from universally accessible. Also keep in mind that these numbers are based on estimations and definitions that give some room for interpretations, so they cannot be 100% accurate either.
  - j245 3y ago
    Bringing up lack of access to sanitation hardly matters in this context. Almost everything can be deemed as not worth doing because we need to fix sanitation first. The author of the post is probably implicitly trying to say ‘everyone [who can] should’. The person who posted about sanitation and taking “everyone” to mean literally everyone in the world, is being overly pedantic in my opinion.
- susanthenerd 3y ago
  Aren't we already 8B people?
- Supermancho 3y ago
  > Regardless how does 3.6:7.8 ie 46% constitute a majority? Most is a word. Words have meaning. Graciously, they are off by a few percent. Parsing words does not diminish the magnitude. The issue still stands. A large enough portion of the worlds problems dwarf the initiative to give everyone a webpage/domain. It's silly enough to discount.
  - allarm 3y ago
    > Graciously, they are off by a few percent. From half. “Most” is likely close to 65-70%. And 46% is “less than half”.
    - Supermancho 3y ago
      Trying to make some separate point about parsed words (you really left the subject behind for some reason), in this case, is not a compelling argument against the assertion. I phrased it in a more amicable form (the way it was obviously intended to be communicated) and another random person, takes up with minutia. Good luck with that.
      - allarm 3y ago
        You don’t need to parse or interpret words. Words, as the other commenter said, have meanings. Use these meanings instead of making up nonsense.
somsak2 3y ago
what is your definition of the word most? it's wrong.
j245 3y ago
Less than 50% doesn’t qualify as most if the statement is about something binary and mutually exclusive. If more than or equal to 46% qualifies as most, then both the statements would be correct: (1) Most people don’t have access to sanitation. (2) Most people do have access to sanitation. That wouldn’t make logical sense.

by kodah 3y ago

spiderice 3y ago

> There's 7.8 billion people in the world, so 3.6 billion qualifies as "most". Do I have an incorrect understanding of the word "most"?

foo-bar-bat 3y ago

It's probably more like 7.9 now. Regardless how does 3.6:7.8 ie 46% constitute a majority? Most is a word. Words have meaning. Respectfully, what you said would be less wrong if you had used the word many.

carschno 3y ago
In the end, however, it hardly matters whether it is 46% or 51% percent. The exact wording by the GP may have been inaccurate, but the numbers support the underlying point: sanitation very far from universally accessible. Also keep in mind that these numbers are based on estimations and definitions that give some room for interpretations, so they cannot be 100% accurate either.
- j245 3y ago
  Bringing up lack of access to sanitation hardly matters in this context. Almost everything can be deemed as not worth doing because we need to fix sanitation first. The author of the post is probably implicitly trying to say ‘everyone [who can] should’. The person who posted about sanitation and taking “everyone” to mean literally everyone in the world, is being overly pedantic in my opinion.
susanthenerd 3y ago
Aren't we already 8B people?
Supermancho 3y ago
> Regardless how does 3.6:7.8 ie 46% constitute a majority? Most is a word. Words have meaning. Graciously, they are off by a few percent. Parsing words does not diminish the magnitude. The issue still stands. A large enough portion of the worlds problems dwarf the initiative to give everyone a webpage/domain. It's silly enough to discount.
- allarm 3y ago
  > Graciously, they are off by a few percent. From half. “Most” is likely close to 65-70%. And 46% is “less than half”.
  - Supermancho 3y ago
    Trying to make some separate point about parsed words (you really left the subject behind for some reason), in this case, is not a compelling argument against the assertion. I phrased it in a more amicable form (the way it was obviously intended to be communicated) and another random person, takes up with minutia. Good luck with that.
    - allarm 3y ago
      You don’t need to parse or interpret words. Words, as the other commenter said, have meanings. Use these meanings instead of making up nonsense.

somsak2 3y ago

what is your definition of the word most? it's wrong.

j245 3y ago

Less than 50% doesn’t qualify as most if the statement is about something binary and mutually exclusive. If more than or equal to 46% qualifies as most, then both the statements would be correct: (1) Most people don’t have access to sanitation. (2) Most people do have access to sanitation. That wouldn’t make logical sense.