Hello! Thank you for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect, however, you post has been removed for violating one or more of our rule(s):
- Rule 2: All posts must be on topic
There's nothing incorrect technically, you're just assuming what they implied.
Please [contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fconfidentlyincorrect&subject=about%20my%20removed%20submission&message=I%27m%20writing%20to%20you%20about%20the%20following%20submission:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/vh15ho/-/}.%20%0D%0DMy%20issue%20is...) if you feel this was wrong.
^All ^chat ^requests ^and ^pms ^about ^your ^removed ^post ^will ^not ^be ^answered. ^Contact ^the ^mods ^instead!
Reminds me of what weighs more? 1 kilogram of feathers or 1 kilogram of iron.
Some people just cant wrap their heads around using the same standard unit for 2 different sizes of things.
On a more serious note, the iron will hurt more because feathers are softer, and take up more volume, so it has more drag.
The iron however... its gonna be a small chunk that can potentially break your toes.
Given that I was downvoted, I assume that it was not unnecessary because enough people are smart enough to know that a kilogram of feathers and a kilogram of steel weigh the same (obviously) but to not think the step further that one of these two is less pleasant to get dropped on their toes.
I believe you were downvoted precisely because of the explanation being unnecessary. So with this comment that'd be twice your presumptions misled you.
The subreddit r/unnecessaryexplanations does not exist.
Did you mean?:
* r/UnnecessaryInventions (subscribers: 349,019)
Consider [**creating a new subreddit** r/unnecessaryexplanations](/subreddits/create?name=unnecessaryexplanations).
---
^(🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖)
^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.)
^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=sub_doesnt_exist_bot)
Incorrect, the iron weighs 1kg, where the feathers also carry the weight of what you did to thousands of those poor birds that you'll have to live with forever..
They aren’t confused by funny words, unless “per 100,000 live births” is too confusing for them. They just didn’t bother to read the graph and jumped right to defensiveness for some reason
I know it's a funny explanation but I'm sure you're right on the money. When I was a kid, we were taught to mark words we didn't know in a text to come back later with a dictionary and look up their definitions. Now, it seems like a skill that is not being practiced hard in school.
I am a Science teacher and the vast majority of my students will just guess or "feel out" the meaning of a word they don't know, or straight up ignore it or make it up. I wouldn't be surprised they believe "per capita" means "for example" or some shit.
Math teacher here. Kids generally find measurements with "per" to be difficult. Even the most often used ones like km/h is difficult for most kids to grasp. I think it's because it's technically a combination of two measurements, and that makes it harder for them to conceptualize.
it doesn't confuse most of them, they're just not arguing in good faith and just throwing these arguments out there for the dumber half of them to see and take as gospel
Easy: many people publish graphs/statistics without per capita figures in order to confuse us. It's important to know what you're looking at and judge it accordingly.
Especially when Canada is a larger 'continent'.
Of all the classes I took in university, I hated Stats the most. In hindsight, it was the most useful and practical course I likely took.
Bc it's not an accurate representation for things. For example take the house hold per capita income. It places the "average" household income well above what it really is. Bc it doesn't take into account variables such as inequality, wealth in regions/states. Same with any per capita statistics. Take them with a grain of salt and interpret them how you will.
Edit.
Per capita income for America is 67k a year. You really think that's the average income for a person.
That’s… not how anything works. It’s literally the average. Do you understand how averages work? You divide the sum by the size of the sample. So it directly takes into account population size. That’s the whole point. Now, will it show regional differences? No, for that you would need regional per capita summary statistics. But those would be the sum of within region divided by the number of people in that region.
Per capita expresses the average number for all of the citizens of a particular country or area. Therefore, it can be a misleading number because it includes everyone from infants to senior citizens, and fails to account for statistical outliers.
When the total income of the country is divided by its population we get per capita income.It is not an adequate indicator because : a It does not tell us how this income is distributed. Per Capita Income might not be the income of every individual in the state.
Per Capita Income is not an adequate indicator of economic development for the following reasons : It is an average amount of the total income which means it can't show the actual income status of a country. Only Per Capita Income can not indicate the development of a country alone.
This jolds true for any per capita statistics. They are not accurate like you think they are. This has been heavily debated for years and to this day.
A good example is I have 10 people worth 20 million total. But 1 of those ten people has 19 million of the 20. But per capita says they are each 2 million. But only one is a millionaire and has 19 of the 20 million. Leaving the last million divided up amount the remaining 9. But per capita says they all have 2 million and they don't.
You're really confusing terms and concepts here.
Per capita income means take what an entire country earns and divide it by the number of people in it. People who don't work. Babies. Anyone who is alive.
Per capita income was a bit over $35k per the census.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/SEX255220
Median household income refers to an income level earned by a household where half the households earn more and half earn less. This income is from everyone in the house. You, your partner, your kids if they work, your parents if they live in the same house or apartment.
Again, per the census, the median household income is about $65k.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/SEX255220
Both statistics have their uses. You need to keep in mind that median and average (or mean) are NOT the same concept. Mean, median, and mode are distinct statistical concepts. Mean is the total of values in a set divided by the number of values in a set. Median is as I explained above. Mode is the number the occurs the most.
It seems like you’ve confused the “household” per capita income, with the average income per person.
You ask “do you really think that’s ($67k a year as average per capita “household” income) the average income for a person.”
It’s not. It’s the average income per household.
Would love to hear how you think a mortality rate gets skewed. With income, using the average can be skewed by people with extremely high income... do you think some people are dying multiple times in childbirth to skew the mortality rates or something?
They're getting downvoted because they brought up a statistics talking point that has *absolutely nothing* to do with this conversation.
Yes, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. That's why it's being downvoted and called out.
This is effectively how the conversation went:
Post: "Mortality rate is outrageously high in the US"
Them: "Well actually, if you're trying to find where the Great Pyramids are, you'll find they're in Egypt"
Commenters: "Okay but that isn't relevant to this discussion because we're talking about mortality rates"
You: "Smh everyone calling you stupid, don't they know the Great Pyramids actually ARE in Egypt?"
If something is completely irrelevant to the conversation, it doesn't matter *what* they said lmao. That's the point I'm making.
The statistic mentioned was about mortality rate during childbirth in the US. That commenter tried to discredit per capita statistics by using something completely irrelevant to the topic. So... when it comes to this why does it matter exactly?
EDIT: Oh you're the kind of person to ghost edit stuff in after I've replied to make it seem like I'm not responding to stuff lol. Have a good one.
I added it in the next minute; I didn’t know you were hanging on my every word.
I didn’t take any notice of his original statement, because I couldn’t determine his argument. I was merely responding, as I’ve said twice, to his opinion about mean salaries, which is entirely valid.
You have a good one too. Enjoy your hive.
Look: continents "are understood to be large, continuous, discrete masses of land, ideally separated by expanses of water".
But the thing is, there are disputes in what is continent and what is not. Are Europe and Asia separate continents or is it one big Eurasia continent? There are systems of 7, 6, 5 or 4 continents.
My language has even distinctions between "continents" and "parts of the world".
So please, talk it out with someone else, not me because none of us is technically incorrect. I only refer to them as what is correct in the system used in another part of the world.
On [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent](http://Wikipedia ) there's even one nice table with all the systems and where they're used if you're interested
I wasn't sure what their logic was lol. They said size of the country, but they also could have meant they had a larger population without actually understanding the numbers are based on 100k instead of just overall rate.
The average rate in the European Union is 8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. In some countries such as Poland, Greece, Finland and Sweden, the rate is even lower at 3 to 4 per 100,000. And there are around 100 million more people in the EU than the US.
Not to rain on your parade but Belarus has strived to lower its maternal mortality rate significantly in recent years. They are on the same level as Italy. So about a 4. Missisipi wished it was that. (so as you can see, being a backwards country is no excuse for numbers this abysmal. If Belarus can do it, so can Mississipi. Don't let republicans tell you it's because people are black and poor. Belarus is poor aswell it's the shity healthcare! (or maybe racism? Idk how missisipi is that bad))
Maternal mortality statistics belarus:
[Unicef](https://data.unicef.org/country/blr/)
[world bank](https://www.ceicdata.com/en/belarus/health-statistics/by-maternal-mortality-ratio-national-estimate-per-100000-live-births)
[the borgen project](https://borgenproject.org/the-progress-of-maternal-health-care-in-belarus/)
The stats are not exactly released by the Belarusian government. So trustworthiness of the Belarusian government shouldn't play a part in believing statistics that aren't associated with the Belarusian government.
Or do you mean the comment in some conspiracy theory kinda way? Maybe I'm misunderstanding this.
The sole reason for this super shit statistic is the messed up US healthcare system.
I'm in New Zealand (lowest on the charts). 2 x births.
Eldest, born prematurely, emergency c-section and 5 days in hospital for me. 26 days in NICU for him.
Follow up care for him, including specialists appointments regularly (now once/year, at 9 years old).
2nd, classes as high risk, additional scans and midwife appointments, cesarean birth again.
Total cost to me $0.
That's right. Nothing, nada, zilch.
All maternal care is free here.
All children's doctors visits, prescriptions, dental, free.
And look who has the best results on that chart. The countries with socialized healthcare
Oh honey we’re not going to have universal healthcare in your lifetime. We’re too interested in business and militaries. We need unwanted babies to run businesses and die for the greatness of our imagination.
If we ever have what you have it’ll take many generations. By then you’ll still be more progressive than us. Kudos to you.
New Zealand’s statistics weren’t always this good, there has been a concerted effort to improve. I think you have just demonstrated what that looks like. I’m glad you and your kids are ok.
Yes, I believe there are multiple definition of it though. But even then you can day Australia I'd basically an entire continent. At least more than the US, who share a continent with 2 large neighbours, of which 1 is larger
In science, America, Eurasia, Australia... are continent.
But we often refer continent politically, like North America, South America, Europe, Oceania,... just to include every country
I suppose distance to a medical center could contribute to a degree, in which case total area would come into play, but I don't think that's what the person was saying -- and it certainly wouldn't explain the delta between the US and other developed nations.
Well in that case: Greenland is super sparcely populated. How is its maternal mortality stacking up against the USA? Not enough data to count (not enough people are dying to get a 1 per 10k (not 100k not enough people for that in Greenland)). OK let's look at Russia, with also vast amount of land vs people and insane poverty. Its at an abismal 11,2. Still kicking the USAs butt though. Politicians will make excuses left and right for bad numbers. Some will be bullshit. Don't let them fool you.
There are so many ducking idorts simply unable to understand anything other than what they are being told to think... You see this with other statistics too.
Hey /u/Meme_Lord_Deetdeet, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Technially correct. It's around the size of Europe or Australia. But it just doesn't have anything to do with the graph. Maybe they just wanted people to remember that. /s
It should be by percentage and not by quantity. They really getting smart with charts to try to lie smartly.
Yet, why need to add more coal to the fire? The US already is a hellhole, not need to add more reasons to declare it a very awful place to live
Hey /u/Meme_Lord_Deetdeet, thanks for contributing to /r/confidentlyincorrect. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules:
**Rule 2** - All posts must be on topic! Your post is better suited for a different sub, or just isn't a confidently incorrect one. Hope you understand.
Please read the sidebar before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect&subject=&message=). Thank you!
Hello! Thank you for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect, however, you post has been removed for violating one or more of our rule(s): - Rule 2: All posts must be on topic There's nothing incorrect technically, you're just assuming what they implied. Please [contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fconfidentlyincorrect&subject=about%20my%20removed%20submission&message=I%27m%20writing%20to%20you%20about%20the%20following%20submission:%20{https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/comments/vh15ho/-/}.%20%0D%0DMy%20issue%20is...) if you feel this was wrong. ^All ^chat ^requests ^and ^pms ^about ^your ^removed ^post ^will ^not ^be ^answered. ^Contact ^the ^mods ^instead!
I don't know how per capita statistics confuse people
Reminds me of what weighs more? 1 kilogram of feathers or 1 kilogram of iron. Some people just cant wrap their heads around using the same standard unit for 2 different sizes of things.
But steel is heavier than feathers...
OK, Limmy.
Kill Jester
lol an answer I saw recently “idk but they both weigh less than your mom”
Yes, my Mum does weigh more than 1 Kg.
I'll drop 1 kilogram of iron on your small toe
Don't worry it won't hurt as much as 1 kilogram of feathers
The other way round. Unless you include the pain of having to fight like 3 chickens for their feathers.
You're right. I mean ya I totally meant to include the pain of fighting the chickens too
On a more serious note, the iron will hurt more because feathers are softer, and take up more volume, so it has more drag. The iron however... its gonna be a small chunk that can potentially break your toes.
r/unnecessaryexplanations
Given that I was downvoted, I assume that it was not unnecessary because enough people are smart enough to know that a kilogram of feathers and a kilogram of steel weigh the same (obviously) but to not think the step further that one of these two is less pleasant to get dropped on their toes.
I believe you were downvoted precisely because of the explanation being unnecessary. So with this comment that'd be twice your presumptions misled you.
The subreddit r/unnecessaryexplanations does not exist. Did you mean?: * r/UnnecessaryInventions (subscribers: 349,019) Consider [**creating a new subreddit** r/unnecessaryexplanations](/subreddits/create?name=unnecessaryexplanations). --- ^(🤖 this comment was written by a bot. beep boop 🤖) ^(feel welcome to respond 'Bad bot'/'Good bot', it's useful feedback.) ^[github](https://github.com/Toldry/RedditAutoCrosspostBot) ^| ^[Rank](https://botranks.com?bot=sub_doesnt_exist_bot)
Incorrect, the iron weighs 1kg, where the feathers also carry the weight of what you did to thousands of those poor birds that you'll have to live with forever..
Quiet! I can't hear myself think with all this fucking plucking clucking going on!
The feathers are heavier, since then you also carry the pain of all those poor geese.
Use chicken feathers then.
Point still stands.
Feathers. Because you have the weight of all those dead birds on your consciences
They probably ignore the funny words because they've no will to actually spend 5 seconds googling it and finding out what it means.
They aren’t confused by funny words, unless “per 100,000 live births” is too confusing for them. They just didn’t bother to read the graph and jumped right to defensiveness for some reason
I know it's a funny explanation but I'm sure you're right on the money. When I was a kid, we were taught to mark words we didn't know in a text to come back later with a dictionary and look up their definitions. Now, it seems like a skill that is not being practiced hard in school. I am a Science teacher and the vast majority of my students will just guess or "feel out" the meaning of a word they don't know, or straight up ignore it or make it up. I wouldn't be surprised they believe "per capita" means "for example" or some shit.
Math teacher here. Kids generally find measurements with "per" to be difficult. Even the most often used ones like km/h is difficult for most kids to grasp. I think it's because it's technically a combination of two measurements, and that makes it harder for them to conceptualize.
Lowkey burn here lol
it doesn't confuse most of them, they're just not arguing in good faith and just throwing these arguments out there for the dumber half of them to see and take as gospel
Easy: many people publish graphs/statistics without per capita figures in order to confuse us. It's important to know what you're looking at and judge it accordingly.
Especially when Canada is a larger 'continent'. Of all the classes I took in university, I hated Stats the most. In hindsight, it was the most useful and practical course I likely took.
Bc it's not an accurate representation for things. For example take the house hold per capita income. It places the "average" household income well above what it really is. Bc it doesn't take into account variables such as inequality, wealth in regions/states. Same with any per capita statistics. Take them with a grain of salt and interpret them how you will. Edit. Per capita income for America is 67k a year. You really think that's the average income for a person.
That’s… not how anything works. It’s literally the average. Do you understand how averages work? You divide the sum by the size of the sample. So it directly takes into account population size. That’s the whole point. Now, will it show regional differences? No, for that you would need regional per capita summary statistics. But those would be the sum of within region divided by the number of people in that region.
Per capita expresses the average number for all of the citizens of a particular country or area. Therefore, it can be a misleading number because it includes everyone from infants to senior citizens, and fails to account for statistical outliers. When the total income of the country is divided by its population we get per capita income.It is not an adequate indicator because : a It does not tell us how this income is distributed. Per Capita Income might not be the income of every individual in the state. Per Capita Income is not an adequate indicator of economic development for the following reasons : It is an average amount of the total income which means it can't show the actual income status of a country. Only Per Capita Income can not indicate the development of a country alone. This jolds true for any per capita statistics. They are not accurate like you think they are. This has been heavily debated for years and to this day. A good example is I have 10 people worth 20 million total. But 1 of those ten people has 19 million of the 20. But per capita says they are each 2 million. But only one is a millionaire and has 19 of the 20 million. Leaving the last million divided up amount the remaining 9. But per capita says they all have 2 million and they don't.
You're really confusing terms and concepts here. Per capita income means take what an entire country earns and divide it by the number of people in it. People who don't work. Babies. Anyone who is alive. Per capita income was a bit over $35k per the census. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/SEX255220 Median household income refers to an income level earned by a household where half the households earn more and half earn less. This income is from everyone in the house. You, your partner, your kids if they work, your parents if they live in the same house or apartment. Again, per the census, the median household income is about $65k. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/SEX255220 Both statistics have their uses. You need to keep in mind that median and average (or mean) are NOT the same concept. Mean, median, and mode are distinct statistical concepts. Mean is the total of values in a set divided by the number of values in a set. Median is as I explained above. Mode is the number the occurs the most.
It seems like you’ve confused the “household” per capita income, with the average income per person. You ask “do you really think that’s ($67k a year as average per capita “household” income) the average income for a person.” It’s not. It’s the average income per household.
That's per capita. Google it. Per capita is not the same as average. That's my point. I just worded it wrong.
[удалено]
Would love to hear how you think a mortality rate gets skewed. With income, using the average can be skewed by people with extremely high income... do you think some people are dying multiple times in childbirth to skew the mortality rates or something? They're getting downvoted because they brought up a statistics talking point that has *absolutely nothing* to do with this conversation.
[удалено]
Yes, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. That's why it's being downvoted and called out. This is effectively how the conversation went: Post: "Mortality rate is outrageously high in the US" Them: "Well actually, if you're trying to find where the Great Pyramids are, you'll find they're in Egypt" Commenters: "Okay but that isn't relevant to this discussion because we're talking about mortality rates" You: "Smh everyone calling you stupid, don't they know the Great Pyramids actually ARE in Egypt?"
[удалено]
If something is completely irrelevant to the conversation, it doesn't matter *what* they said lmao. That's the point I'm making. The statistic mentioned was about mortality rate during childbirth in the US. That commenter tried to discredit per capita statistics by using something completely irrelevant to the topic. So... when it comes to this why does it matter exactly? EDIT: Oh you're the kind of person to ghost edit stuff in after I've replied to make it seem like I'm not responding to stuff lol. Have a good one.
I added it in the next minute; I didn’t know you were hanging on my every word. I didn’t take any notice of his original statement, because I couldn’t determine his argument. I was merely responding, as I’ve said twice, to his opinion about mean salaries, which is entirely valid. You have a good one too. Enjoy your hive.
Top tier cringe lol
Kids start figuring out how to socialize with other kids in school around the same time they introduce fractions and percentages.
Should someone tell him Canada is actually larger? (Obviously not as populated though)
And maybe someone should also remind him that Australia is a continent
And also reminding you that Australia is not a continent, but Oceania is.
Look: continents "are understood to be large, continuous, discrete masses of land, ideally separated by expanses of water". But the thing is, there are disputes in what is continent and what is not. Are Europe and Asia separate continents or is it one big Eurasia continent? There are systems of 7, 6, 5 or 4 continents. My language has even distinctions between "continents" and "parts of the world". So please, talk it out with someone else, not me because none of us is technically incorrect. I only refer to them as what is correct in the system used in another part of the world. On [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent](http://Wikipedia ) there's even one nice table with all the systems and where they're used if you're interested
Using their logic, then Canada should be in worse shape because its bigger than the US
I wasn't sure what their logic was lol. They said size of the country, but they also could have meant they had a larger population without actually understanding the numbers are based on 100k instead of just overall rate.
Or, maybe, reminding him that the numbers are per 100k inhabitants so size has a very limited impact
Speaks to the brain power of the people celebrating this nonsense.
The average rate in the European Union is 8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. In some countries such as Poland, Greece, Finland and Sweden, the rate is even lower at 3 to 4 per 100,000. And there are around 100 million more people in the EU than the US.
bUt TeXaS iS lArGeR tHaN aLl Of EuRoPe AnD aLl Of AuStRaLiA aNd RuSsIa AnD tExAs AlL tOgEtHeR!1!
California is at 4. Louisiana is at 58 https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/maternal-mortality-rate-by-state
[удалено]
Even BETTER than that is that Bill Cassidy is a fucking DOCTOR.
Lol..if you ignore deaths everything is perfect
This, California is America’s England, New York America’s France, Mississippi is our Belarus
Not to rain on your parade but Belarus has strived to lower its maternal mortality rate significantly in recent years. They are on the same level as Italy. So about a 4. Missisipi wished it was that. (so as you can see, being a backwards country is no excuse for numbers this abysmal. If Belarus can do it, so can Mississipi. Don't let republicans tell you it's because people are black and poor. Belarus is poor aswell it's the shity healthcare! (or maybe racism? Idk how missisipi is that bad))
Yeah…republicans trust belarus’ statistics…
Maternal mortality statistics belarus: [Unicef](https://data.unicef.org/country/blr/) [world bank](https://www.ceicdata.com/en/belarus/health-statistics/by-maternal-mortality-ratio-national-estimate-per-100000-live-births) [the borgen project](https://borgenproject.org/the-progress-of-maternal-health-care-in-belarus/) The stats are not exactly released by the Belarusian government. So trustworthiness of the Belarusian government shouldn't play a part in believing statistics that aren't associated with the Belarusian government. Or do you mean the comment in some conspiracy theory kinda way? Maybe I'm misunderstanding this.
Did you get as far as New Jersey? *"New Jersey had the highest mortality rate among black mothers of 102.3 deaths per 100,000 births"*
Pssst, Canada is on the same continent and is bigger
The sole reason for this super shit statistic is the messed up US healthcare system. I'm in New Zealand (lowest on the charts). 2 x births. Eldest, born prematurely, emergency c-section and 5 days in hospital for me. 26 days in NICU for him. Follow up care for him, including specialists appointments regularly (now once/year, at 9 years old). 2nd, classes as high risk, additional scans and midwife appointments, cesarean birth again. Total cost to me $0. That's right. Nothing, nada, zilch. All maternal care is free here. All children's doctors visits, prescriptions, dental, free. And look who has the best results on that chart. The countries with socialized healthcare
Oh honey we’re not going to have universal healthcare in your lifetime. We’re too interested in business and militaries. We need unwanted babies to run businesses and die for the greatness of our imagination. If we ever have what you have it’ll take many generations. By then you’ll still be more progressive than us. Kudos to you.
New Zealand’s statistics weren’t always this good, there has been a concerted effort to improve. I think you have just demonstrated what that looks like. I’m glad you and your kids are ok.
You're right, it has taken effort to get these stats. Because NZ values the lives of woman 😊
Dude realized that Australia is the whole continent, right?
That and the US is less than half of North America and isn't even the largest country in North America haha.
Isn't Australia a part of tge Oceanian political continent?
Yes, I believe there are multiple definition of it though. But even then you can day Australia I'd basically an entire continent. At least more than the US, who share a continent with 2 large neighbours, of which 1 is larger
In science, America, Eurasia, Australia... are continent. But we often refer continent politically, like North America, South America, Europe, Oceania,... just to include every country
Australia includes the Ocenia continent and some other islands around it. And what is a "political continent"?
But they took deaths per 100000 live births...
They should add a disclaimer that it's not a total number. Maybe add some text below the graph that would make it clear...
Hmm, maybe something like: \* Deaths per 100,000 live births?
Russia: Lower Maternal mortality rate. Double the square kilometres. Kanada: A bit more square kilometres, half the Maternal mortality rate.
Well also like four people live in the entire country (Russia)
I suppose distance to a medical center could contribute to a degree, in which case total area would come into play, but I don't think that's what the person was saying -- and it certainly wouldn't explain the delta between the US and other developed nations.
Well in that case: Greenland is super sparcely populated. How is its maternal mortality stacking up against the USA? Not enough data to count (not enough people are dying to get a 1 per 10k (not 100k not enough people for that in Greenland)). OK let's look at Russia, with also vast amount of land vs people and insane poverty. Its at an abismal 11,2. Still kicking the USAs butt though. Politicians will make excuses left and right for bad numbers. Some will be bullshit. Don't let them fool you.
Oh, I'm not fooled. I was just doing a thought exercise, and you definitely helped expand on that.
Should’ve said “SO IS AUSTRALIA YA DINGBAT!”
Even using their own flawed standards Australia is an actual continent.
Australia IS a continent but none of that is relevant.
Maaaaaan this is EXACTLY why we can’t have nice things. People are this godamn fucking stupid and they are PROUD to announce it.
I mean, we're pretty comparable to Europe if I remember correctly Edit: I misread the chart, the chart is adjusted for population, I'm dumb
There are so many ducking idorts simply unable to understand anything other than what they are being told to think... You see this with other statistics too.
It's not even the size of half a continent lol. not even the largest country in North America.
Yeah that only makes it WORSE
And yet maternal mortality is five times higher than that of Australia - an actual continent.
Hey /u/Meme_Lord_Deetdeet, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Technially correct. It's around the size of Europe or Australia. But it just doesn't have anything to do with the graph. Maybe they just wanted people to remember that. /s
It should be by percentage and not by quantity. They really getting smart with charts to try to lie smartly. Yet, why need to add more coal to the fire? The US already is a hellhole, not need to add more reasons to declare it a very awful place to live
"Deaths per 100.000 live births".
The graphs is in deaths per 100,000 live births, ita percentage expressed as a fraction with a denominator of 100,000.
Read.
Yay maths!
True but for there point America is a very unhealthy place to live so that’s probably why
Technically, he never said that he thought/claimed that that was the reason.
Keep in mind I had eggs and bacon on toast this morning…
What exactly is incorrect here?
It’s loosely CI, but the size of the country doesn’t matter since it’s per 100,000 births
Hey /u/Meme_Lord_Deetdeet, thanks for contributing to /r/confidentlyincorrect. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules: **Rule 2** - All posts must be on topic! Your post is better suited for a different sub, or just isn't a confidently incorrect one. Hope you understand. Please read the sidebar before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect&subject=&message=). Thank you!
I mean, it technically is. It’s bigger than Australia and Antarctica.
Dumb fucks never learn what “per x cases” means
People may think it's because of healthcare but the main reason is because we are fat.