Percent is a relative term. The user can set the reference value to anything, it's just convention to start with the most recent value. If you wanted to grandfather in an original much lower price as your reference point for future price changes you could do that, although you should make it extra clear what you're doing since you're breaking convention, but not the rules.
A 83.3% price decrease is the same as saying you can buy 600% as much for for the same price, the relationship is there but it's not always immediately intuitive and since some people are always drawn to "bigger number better" one tends to be more more effective at impressing people. It's a little slimy but it's not complete nonsense, and marketers have been pulling that same shit for decades so people who suddenly play ignorant about that when Trump/RFK Jr. does it just look, well, stupid and ignorant to me.
What's way more embarrassing is actually him saying 100 to 600 is a 600% rise. 🤦♂️
The same retards quibbling over this had exactly jack shit to say about covid vaxx propagandists using miniscule relative risk numbers (which were false anyway but n/m) to claim 100% vaxx effectiveness. Just agree with them that RFK sucks and tell them to get another booster, watch their firmware short circuit.
In common parlance, there's a lot of leeway in definitions. 600% is, after all, 600% of 100%. 100% of 600% is 600%, and 600% of 100% is 600%. The differential is 500%, but 500% of 100% is 500%, not 600%. When you're reducing your words down to a conversational back-and-forth, you're not going to be talking like a lawyer trying to make a wish from a jerk-ass genie. His terms were inaccurate, but his point was gotten across that he was looking at it from the reversed perspective.
That stated, "you can now buy a year's worth of medicine, for what you used to pay for just two months' worth" would have been a better way to word it, I don't think anyone would argue that. It's more accurate by every regard, and still sounds good because it is a lot more in a way laypeople would visualize.
Percent is a relative term. The user can set the reference value to anything, it's just convention to start with the most recent value. If you wanted to grandfather in an original much lower price as your reference point for future price changes you could do that, although you should make it extra clear what you're doing since you're breaking convention, but not the rules.
A 83.3% price decrease is the same as saying you can buy 600% as much for for the same price, the relationship is there but it's not always immediately intuitive and since some people are always drawn to "bigger number better" one tends to be more more effective at impressing people. It's a little slimy but it's not complete nonsense, and marketers have been pulling that same shit for decades so people who suddenly play ignorant about that when Trump/RFK Jr. does it just look, well, stupid and ignorant to me.
What's way more embarrassing is actually him saying 100 to 600 is a 600% rise. 🤦♂️
The same retards quibbling over this had exactly jack shit to say about covid vaxx propagandists using miniscule relative risk numbers (which were false anyway but n/m) to claim 100% vaxx effectiveness. Just agree with them that RFK sucks and tell them to get another booster, watch their firmware short circuit.
In common parlance, there's a lot of leeway in definitions. 600% is, after all, 600% of 100%. 100% of 600% is 600%, and 600% of 100% is 600%. The differential is 500%, but 500% of 100% is 500%, not 600%. When you're reducing your words down to a conversational back-and-forth, you're not going to be talking like a lawyer trying to make a wish from a jerk-ass genie. His terms were inaccurate, but his point was gotten across that he was looking at it from the reversed perspective.
That stated, "you can now buy a year's worth of medicine, for what you used to pay for just two months' worth" would have been a better way to word it, I don't think anyone would argue that. It's more accurate by every regard, and still sounds good because it is a lot more in a way laypeople would visualize.
This is one of those moments where the average IQ popular bros are making a point and the nerdy engineer guy interrupts them... Well, acshually...
Yeah it's one of those times you could just say '500% not 600% but point made' than go long winded.
As the latter usually ended in getting called a teacher's pet.
Community notes for the win.
So gas prices never went down when Trump was installed a second time because they went up under the Biden administration then came back down.
Tbh, it's phrased badly. So, he technically correct, it's impossible.
deport rupar
Rupar is a turbofaggot.
Why are you posting this globohomo shill here?