"The days of our lives are threescore years and ten", right? Would everyone have bought into that if most folks were really shuffling off in their 30s?

This is like the sharks attacking in 3 ft of water one. That's where most swimmers are.

These maps are accurate because we elect with an electoral college, not a popular vote. You win by 1 vote in a state, you get the whole block.

Also that’s mostly because the justice system is anything but

This is good. A good start. 1st you HAVE to ask "Who - says this." then - "What do they WANT the outcome to be" - because chances are they DO "want" it to turn out a certain way. then....

Well, the point of those maps is also to highlight were high number of "bad things" happening does NOT correlate with "where most people live". This method is an extremely good tracker for large-scale health hazards. If the rate of cancer-related illness is higher in Bumfuck, Alabama than in New York, it's very likely that there is something going on there, such as illegal dumps of dangerous chemicals or harmful industrial activities.

69% of statistics are just made up

Thing is, up until the middle of the 20th century, it was the other way around. Men automatically got custody of their children in a divorce, absolutely no contest, and had the power to dictate whether or not their ex-wives could see them at all. Even if they were the fathers from hell itself. So many children went to old school-type fathers who were 100% ill-equipped and/or uninterested in doing any parenting, as long as they could stick it to their ex-wives. And yes, I know there are mothers who get custody and do the same things, but at least custody agreements aren’t quite so cut and dried, and the best judges in family courts are hard to fool and really try to make the arrangement as equitable as the family dynamics dictate. Of course, not every judge in every family court is going to be good, and that’s unfortunate for both the children and the ex-partner who would actually be the better parent for the kids to live with.

Benjamin Disraeli's quote: "There are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics." is pretty old. What he was saying, with vast knowledge of the subject, is that MANY entities TWIST statistics into LIES to try to push their own agenda. It's an old, old practice.

speaking as a non-vegan, I don't class vegan as a fad diet. It's not about losing weight. It's about not murdering animals. Ethical choice. Nothing to do with weight/body image.

It always baffles me how many people will try a diet that has just been invented half a year ago. Which means there are is no data yet about whether it is a useful diet or not, because there are zero people who have started it a couple of years ago, and that is the data you need. Because pretty much every diet will make you lose weight at first, but with most diets pretty much everyone has gained that weight back (plus some extra) a few years later. So the fact that lots of people have lost some weight for a few months, says absolutely nothing about whether this diet is a good idea or not. It should be about how much weight you can lose and keep off in the long run, not about how much weight you can lose in the beginning.

I'm not on a keto diet to lower my weight. It's to lower my a1c level.

This group of people lost a total of 2 pounds and that group of people lost a total of 4 pounds so if you belonged to group 2 you would have lost twice as much than if you belong to group 1 (or some other statistical trick)

Meh, I do Keto when I need to lose weight. I stick to below 20 grams of carbs and lose 12-15 lbs in the first two weeks, all definitely water weight. Then over the next couple months the weight slowly drops off with plateaus every few weeks. But when I stick to it, get good fats and exercise, I can consistently lose 10-15 lbs a month. It takes dedication though, cause just one cheat day can stop your progress cold for weeks, so you really, really have to stick to the 20g carb limit.

So you can stop drinking it.

Solid information.. (And as the guy doing the studies himself - I can tell you we don't understand it all either.) :-) True statistic. This is NOT actually "bad"!! The smartest, MOST educated and careful scientists will ALL tell you how VERY much - they do NOT know. It's one of the best ways to tell them apart - the Knowitalls - are the stupidest and most ignorant.

And ignore the mode entirely. :-)

Correlation is not causation

The whole Kitty Genovese story is actually really interesting to look into. Basically the majority of what it is known for is the result of wildly inaccurate reporting by the New York Times. The number of witnesses was greatly exaggerated, and there were calls to the police. No witnesses saw the full end to end attack (plus most had little visibility), and in the initial attack her lung was punctured, meaning she would not be able to scream or yell to any volume, so people had little idea something was still ongoing after the initial noise

What about landsharks and their tricky candygram deliveries?

the number of idiots I deal with regularly makes me inclined to believe this one. And the 10% that is operational is the brainstem part.

Exactly. If a chihuahua attacks someone, you might have to buy a bandaid. If an XL bully attacks someone, you might have to buy a coffin.

There is some truth to this, but the treatment is so flippant it's of low value -

Plus, where do the Numbers come from? I'm guessing arrest reports and legal proceedings. Plenty of times a white (or wealthy) individual will be let off with a warning/something minor while a Black (or poor) individual is not.

Snow happens so no global warming. Every winter the deniers trot that one out.

What a lot of people fail to take into consideration is inflation. They don’t realize that the $1/gallon they paid for gas in the early 1980s wasn’t actually cheaper. It just seems so, because of how little a dollar can buy anymore. According to the (US) Bureau of Labor's Inflation Calculator, that $1/gallon gasoline in 1980 is equivalent to $3.77/gallon today. Granted, there are some things that really were cheaper back in the day, such as the price of a started home, and there were some things more expensive back in the day, like making long distance phone calls, but most of the basics have simply just kept up with inflation rates. It’s the average PAYCHECK that has failed to keep up with inflation. The $15/hr minimum wage that one-percenters b***h about and loudly claim it will bankrupt the economy is equivalent to $3.98/hr in 1980. Hell, I turned 20 in 1980, and was making more than $3.98/hr just working at a car rental counter in the local airport—pretty much on par with a retail job, and I could afford to not live at home, as the rent on my first apartment was only $195/month, or $734.39 in 2024 dollars—-not on a tiny one-room studio the size of a closet, but on a relatively roomy one bedroom apartment with a pantry and a screened-in back porch that won”d probably cost well over $1000, and probably a lot more, today because it was located in an old, established, lovely, quiet, SAFE Victorian neighborhood (that’s what I meant about housing prices being way more expensive nowadays). We also didn’t have all the home electronics and cellphones to pay astronomical bills for. The only equivalent was cable TV, and even that was cheap—-and wasn’t full of junk channels no one ever watches.

Actually I think it’s a little less

Statistics used in advertising? 100% suspect.

I'll accept all of those numbers- yes, reality gets skewed. If I were doing a full analysis of the question I would want several more comparisons of how to look at it to get a good picture. Like what percent of young people in the appropriate age bracket is it?

Always consider what biases might be there

Great example of how to tilt numbers to suit yourself. Why should women WITH children be excluded from your comparison? Are they not real? What OP is saying is "oh, the pay gap stuff is silly" Don't think so, myself.

There was study released in OZ recently, and they did make it clear "Gender pay gaps are not a comparison of like roles. Instead, they show the difference between the average or median pay of women and men across organisations, industries and the workforce as a whole."