I think it's a big difference. A statement like "the vaccine is 100% effective" is just false but "the vaccine protects almost 100% for severe disease" seems reasonable, even though I don't like the "almost 100%", because of the ambiguity. It's clear that there is no consent about what still counts as almost 100%.
I think it's a big difference. A statement like "the vaccine is 100% effective" is just false but "the vaccine protects almost 100% for severe disease" seems reasonable, even though I don't like the "almost 100%", because of the ambiguity. It's clear that there is no consent about what still counts as almost 100%.
Trust the science and their ambiguity. 100% is not a definitive term anymore.
The only true 100% is that shekels were made at historical numbers at record rates.
So much so you have the bitch from cali and buffett pushing a law that elected officials cannot trade stock....fuck like they do anyway, their s.o. or some close makes the trade and they profit.
Trust the science and their ambiguity. 100% is not a definitive term anymore.
The only true 100% is that shekels were made at historical numbers at record rates.
So much so you have the bitch from cali and buffett pushing a law that elected officials cannot trade stock....fuck like they do anyway, their s.o. or some close makes the trade and they profit.
!["user was banned for this post" [1080x772 - 1.23MB]](https://pic8.co/sh/H2iFxK.png){kind=link}
(post is archived)