994 mass shootings in 1,004 days

[beero1000]

Not to rain on your parade, but you need the same units to calculate percentage...

No you don't; units are always subject to the same arithmetic operations as numbers, and all is fine.

994 shootings / 1004 days = 0.99 shootings/day = 99% shootings/day.

So the parade remains dry and sun-kissed.

Except the days with multiple mass shootings make the 99% misleading..

 

[bilby]

No you don't; units are always subject to the same arithmetic operations as numbers, and all is fine.

994 shootings / 1004 days = 0.99 shootings/day = 99% shootings/day.

So the parade remains dry and sun-kissed.

Except the days with multiple mass shootings, make the 99% misleading..

It's a mean.

I'm not in the business of trying to avoid confusion amongst people who are so easily confused as to be baffled by the concept of an arithmetic mean. If we are required to never say anything that might confuse such individuals, then we could barely speak at all.

 

[beero1000]

Except the days with multiple mass shootings, make the 99% misleading..

It's a mean.

I'm not in the business of trying to avoid confusion amongst people who are so easily confused as to be baffled by the concept of an arithmetic mean. If we are required to never say anything that might confuse such individuals, then we could barely speak at all.

Percentages are dimensionless numbers - they are not means or ratios of unlike units. Saying "99% shootings/day" is, at best, a misleading abuse of notation.

 

[bilby]

It's a mean.

I'm not in the business of trying to avoid confusion amongst people who are so easily confused as to be baffled by the concept of an arithmetic mean. If we are required to never say anything that might confuse such individuals, then we could barely speak at all.

Percentages are dimensionless numbers - they are not means or ratios of unlike units. Saying "99% shootings/day" is, at best, a misleading abuse of notation.

Not at all - it is very clear what it means (pun intended).

Numerals are dimensionless numbers too; when they represent something that is not dimensionless, you need to also specify a unit. Percentages are not fundamentally different from prefix multipliers - k means 'multiply by a thousand'; M means 'multiply by a million'; m means 'divide by a thousand' and % means 'divide by a hundred'.

0.99 and 99% are just two different notations for the same thing; just as 99W and 0.099kW are different notations for the same thing.

 

[crispy]

Percentages are dimensionless numbers - they are not means or ratios of unlike units. Saying "99% shootings/day" is, at best, a misleading abuse of notation.

Not at all - it is very clear what it means (pun intended).

Numerals are dimensionless numbers too; when they represent something that is not dimensionless, you need to also specify a unit. Percentages are not fundamentally different from prefix multipliers - k means 'multiply by a thousand'; M means 'multiply by a million'; m means 'divide by a thousand' and % means 'divide by a hundred'.

0.99 and 99% are just two different notations for the same thing; just as 99W and 0.099kW are different notations for the same thing.

0.99 shootings per day, is not the same as saying 99% shootings per day. Percentage is a dimensionless number, it even in the very first paragraph on wikipedia, but this discussion is a derail if I ever saw any

 

[Tigers!]

Not at all - it is very clear what it means (pun intended).

Numerals are dimensionless numbers too; when they represent something that is not dimensionless, you need to also specify a unit. Percentages are not fundamentally different from prefix multipliers - k means 'multiply by a thousand'; M means 'multiply by a million'; m means 'divide by a thousand' and % means 'divide by a hundred'.

0.99 and 99% are just two different notations for the same thing; just as 99W and 0.099kW are different notations for the same thing.

0.99 shootings per day, is not the same as saying 99% shootings per day. Percentage is a dimensionless number, it even in the very first paragraph on wikipedia, but this discussion is a derail if I ever saw any

Since I started the whole calculation thingy I'll throw my 2 bob's worth.
The 99% was merely noting that 99% of days in that previous 1004 had had a mass shooting. It was further noted that you sceptics were so close to get a mass shooting every day that you should try a little harder. I forgot that sarcasm seems to be a foreign topic for many septics.
Yet the discussion devolved into a discourse into dimensional analysis.