well that’s great for this one person but this is just an anecdote, and not reliable data. we need more data points to create a large enough sample size so we can refer to more reliable statistics. i wonder how we could get that.
Trading one horrible motherfucker for even one of his potential victims is absolutely enough for me. I don’t need further statistics.
Edit: in light of my brain recently being reactivated and understanding what the comment was saying, please disregard my low IQ comment and let the science commence!
Oh yeah. Yeah! We need to robust science on this shit. The more data points we have, the more reliable the research, right? Heck yeah, let’s get on with it then!
well that’s great for this one person but this is just an anecdote, and not reliable data. we need more data points to create a large enough sample size so we can refer to more reliable statistics. i wonder how we could get that.
Trading one horrible motherfucker for even one of his potential victims is absolutely enough for me. I don’t need further statistics.
Edit: in light of my brain recently being reactivated and understanding what the comment was saying, please disregard my low IQ comment and let the science commence!
No dude, they’re saying that we need to repeat the experiment
performative gasp i would never!!!
Oh yeah. Yeah! We need to robust science on this shit. The more data points we have, the more reliable the research, right? Heck yeah, let’s get on with it then!
That’s just responsible statistical analysis, any good scientist will tell you there should be several tests for a proper experiment.
Gotta start somewhere on fixing the replication crisis.
We also haven’t seen any data compiled for health insurance claim denial rates after the killing.
not hard data but there were definitely news reports of denial rates tanking in the days following the killing.
There were definitely a couple of opinion articles among fringe news networks, but without evidence it isn’t really news is it?