And there’s a case to be made for the author to only include those who indicated they were explicitly unfavorable, and not those who were unsure (or agnostic). Otherwise Dan’s criticism would have been that they included those to inflate the numbers.
The only thing that there isn’t a case for is claiming that more than half do support the DSA.
Alright, this is my last message, but I’ll try to explain it. This is an example of DeMorgan’s law.
Let’s call “support” A, and “50%” B, just so we can move it away from natural language. Not A means “not support” or “don’t support”.
The headline can be expressed as “not A < B”. Using DeMorgan’s law, we can change that to an equivalent statement of “A >= B”.
Now, convert it back to natural language and that’s “support >= 50%”.
Again, I’m not making a claim on the validity. I am only expressing what the headline says. Headlines can be wrong, and the article may even contradict it. That doesn’t affect the headline though.
What?
If 47% view the DSA unfavorably, and 23% are unsure (which you’re counting as unsupportive) then we’re at 70%.
I’m only discussing the headline posted, not if it’s wrong. What it says is that more than half support. I’m not claiming that’s correct.
No, the headline says less than half support.
And there’s a case to be made for the author to only include those who indicated they were explicitly unfavorable, and not those who were unsure (or agnostic). Otherwise Dan’s criticism would have been that they included those to inflate the numbers.
The only thing that there isn’t a case for is claiming that more than half do support the DSA.
Alright, this is my last message, but I’ll try to explain it. This is an example of DeMorgan’s law.
Let’s call “support” A, and “50%” B, just so we can move it away from natural language. Not A means “not support” or “don’t support”.
The headline can be expressed as “not A < B”. Using DeMorgan’s law, we can change that to an equivalent statement of “A >= B”.
Now, convert it back to natural language and that’s “support >= 50%”.
Again, I’m not making a claim on the validity. I am only expressing what the headline says. Headlines can be wrong, and the article may even contradict it. That doesn’t affect the headline though.
I understand your pedantry. And I explained the rationale.
Not sure why you felt the need to restate it, no one is confused.
Damn, y’all two are splitting the dumbest fucking hairs.