Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So you agree then that whether 1% is negligible is based on context? Yeah, or as I put it: "Numbers get their significance relatively, not in themselves". Whereas you repeatedly stated how 70 million people is a huge number in itself. E.g. If I told you there are 70 million people that have blue eyes, is that "a huge number?" No, it's actually a small number. One would expect blue-eyed people to be in the 100s of m…
> Whereas you repeatedly stated how 70 million people is a huge number in itself. I haven't claimed that at all. I've said over and over that context indicates whether it's important. > Whereas you repeatedly stated how 70 million people is a huge number in itself. No, I've said 70 million people is a lot in terms of medical and social policy. It would be very possible, for example, for 1% of people to account for 10…
Language.
Also, I didn't say it's about "MY" expectations. It's about what the expected distribution is, which is the whole context that makes something big or small.
"Expectations" are entirely irrelevant to whether a number is big or little.
Actually, it's all about that. Bringing 10,000 times 6 by throwing dice 20,000 times is too big, because the expected outcome is about 1/6 throws to be 6.