Reading this makes me really angry for some reason.
Reading this makes me really angry for some reason.
Why is that obvious? I’m really curious, especially since you’re wrong.
No, no. You see, when a bible survives a house fire that destroys everything else, that’s a miracle and shows god’s grace.
Thanks for explaining the joke.
Imperial to lure them in, metric to finish them off.
Life hack: buy a single strawberry, take a bite, and give it back because it is half eaten, so you get a full one anew. Repeat. Sounds like a flawless plan to me.
You bought a single strawberry?
I mean, with that van… Not saying it’s not weird, but, like, I get it.
That’s the point. To make the low-population area more intense. Because relative to the population density, there were 100 times as many sightings. Or what am I missing.
There are a number of normalization algorithms. Easiest would be to just divide by the area’s population count. That gives you the relative number of bigfoot sightings or fursuits per capita, removing any skews introduced by varyin population size.
Say you have two areas:
Area 1: 100000 people, 1000 fursuits, 500 bigfoot sightings Area 2: 1000 people, 10 fursuits, 5 bigfoot sightings
Without knowing the population size, it looks like more fursuits means more bigfoot sightings. But if we divide by the population size, we get 0.01 fursuits and 0.005 bigfoot sightings per person in both areas.
Hope that helps. ^^
Now normalize it for population density.
I’ll shed a tear either way.
I work at a large airport this summer. What is this “fully staffed” you’re talking about, and where can I get it?
I mean, I’m complaining about my family and friends caring about me. xD
I do this weird thing where I know real people in real life who also know my birthday.
Why do you think I wrote that reply? xD
Karl Marx in my ass