Variance as used in statistics is esoteric and technical and no reasonable person would expect it to be used as a technical or esoteric term unless the surround

Variance as used in statistics is esoteric and technical and no reasonable person would expect it to be used as a technical or esoteric term unless the surrounding context required it. Given the generality of my original comment and the clear lack of any indication that I was using the term in its statistical sense, you are way off the mark. Less pedantically, the problem with your example is that you have (really rather hilariously) taken the past century as your reference point, and that’s exactly (no really, EXACTLY) the problem. For all you know 1900-2000 was atypical. The fact that you couldn’t see the irony in what you were thinking before you typed it all out is telling. Not sure what else to tell you. You are correct that I’m not a scientist by profession, though - I have a BSc and an LLB from a G8 school. I don’t use my BSc professionally. That fact has no bearing on my ability to use words for their plain meaning, though, or to understand basic scoentific concepts. Have a good day, mate.