3 ms·
> the relative reduction is less impactful (e.g. 4% to 3.28% That's also an 18% reduction
by weird-eye-issue 7mo ago
> the relative reduction is less impactful (e.g. 4% to 3.28%
That's also an 18% reduction
- Xunjin 7mo agoI think what he means is a reduction of 18% based on 4% is way less than 18% based on 80%.
- infinitewars 7mo agoPercents of percents always felt kludgey. Log probabilities (like decibans) unify this to say there is a -0.86 dB risk reduction for everybody. https://rationalnumbers.james-kay.com/?p=306 https://rationalnumbers.james-kay.com/?p=306 It makes the math of combining risks easier and works the same even if we're operating near 99.999% or 0.0001%
- jader201 7mo agoThat’s exactly my point. If someone is high risk, say 20%, then an 18% drop from that is 14.4%. That may justify picking up caffeine. But if you’re otherwise healthy, picking up caffeine has diminishing returns, and the downsides may not be worth it.