zlacker

[parent] [thread] 7 comments
1. latchk+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-08-15 17:22:59
Is it?
replies(1): >>warren+JE
2. warren+JE[view] [source] 2023-08-15 20:59:19
>>latchk+(OP)
0.02% of a big number ... is still a big number

0.02% of 10,000 is 2 - pretty small

0.02% of 1,000,000,000 is 200,000 ... kinda big :)

replies(1): >>chromo+pl1
◧◩
3. chromo+pl1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-16 01:53:22
>>warren+JE
In my opinion, absolute value is not important here, what matters is the fraction. I consider 0.02% to be large by itself for the given context.
replies(1): >>latchk+bm1
◧◩◪
4. latchk+bm1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-16 02:00:44
>>chromo+pl1
What would be small?
replies(1): >>chromo+Rq1
◧◩◪◨
5. chromo+Rq1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-16 02:32:26
>>latchk+bm1
This is subjective, but for me here a small fraction would be a few orders of magnitude less than that - few ten-millionths or less.
replies(1): >>latchk+Rx1
◧◩◪◨⬒
6. latchk+Rx1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-16 03:45:47
>>chromo+Rq1
Exactly, it is subjective, 0.02% is small in my opinion. Yet I'm getting downvoted and told that isn't small. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
replies(1): >>chromo+hA1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
7. chromo+hA1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-16 04:11:55
>>latchk+Rx1
What's important here is the negative impact of the blacklist on communication. Probably some downvoters mean that the blacklist is big enough that the impact is important, and disagree with your supposed implication that it isn't.
replies(1): >>latchk+yA1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
8. latchk+yA1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-08-16 04:14:35
>>chromo+hA1
Agreed, you're probably right about that.
[go to top]