Difference between revisions of "Talk:795: Conditional Risk"
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| − | The line 'The annual death rate among people who know that statistic is one in six' clearly points out that the people who know the statistic tend to be dismissive about the danger of the lightning strikes and put themselves in danger. Even though | + | The line 'The annual death rate among people who know that statistic is one in six' clearly points out that the people who know the statistic tend to be dismissive about the danger of the lightning strikes and put themselves in danger. Even though the statistic is probably invented by the author, shouldn't it go in the explanation? |
I did not want to change the explanation without a discussion. (PS: I am a newbie here) | I did not want to change the explanation without a discussion. (PS: I am a newbie here) | ||
[[User:A2658742|A2658742]] ([[User talk:A2658742|talk]]) 10:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)a2658742 | [[User:A2658742|A2658742]] ([[User talk:A2658742|talk]]) 10:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)a2658742 | ||
Revision as of 10:45, 10 April 2015
"I'm not American! So my risk is basically zero!"
Is the risk to Americans so low because lightning concentrates on non-Americans?
I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The line 'The annual death rate among people who know that statistic is one in six' clearly points out that the people who know the statistic tend to be dismissive about the danger of the lightning strikes and put themselves in danger. Even though the statistic is probably invented by the author, shouldn't it go in the explanation?
I did not want to change the explanation without a discussion. (PS: I am a newbie here)
