Wow. How stupid does one have to be to believe ANY of those, even a second? They're not even plausible.
I don't follow your claim that it's meaningless. n_who_believe/n_who_saw is the interesting figure.
-
-
it's actually n_who_belive / n_internet_polled_who_remember_seeing which vastly over-emphasises the effect.
-
& the presentation of the values implies to a casual reader that it's n_who_believe / n_polled which is just nasty.
-
That's nonsense. I didn't interpret it as n_who_believed/n_polled and don't see how anyone would.
-
https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-12/6/18/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane03/sub-buzz-13744-1481068089-1.jpg?resize=990:1316&no-auto … it is quite literally what it says here. "and who" vs "that"
-
also for laughs; the author of the article repeating the same BS.https://twitter.com/CraigSilverman/status/806311033212125184 …
-
What part exactly are you calling BS? The self-reporting of whether they saw the headline before?
-
Obviously he's going to repeat the same thing over and over until we surrender to his superior brogrammer intellect and repent.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.