FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:07 pm
Others are liable to be found claiming non work benefits for invalidity.
How do you validly claim invalidity so your invalidity claim is not invalid? But you are?
That's A. B. is that the chart is meaningless. It created a smoothish-looking curve by fudging the coordinates. I have seen it all, but I haven't seen this type of lie. The scale on the right goes up in equal distances, as expected, "2", "4", "6", and then surprisingly a "5" chimes in, instead of an "8",then it continues... bah.
Other than the very trivial typo - that isn't a big deal given how easily you recognised the correct number to be 8 - that graph is perfectly ok, they've cited their source which publishes the numbers online if you want to check. If I'd got it from The Economist or Bloomberg I imagine they would have been more explicit about which scale referred to which stat. But only the hopelessly stupid can't work that out too.
-1- wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:32 am
How do you validly claim invalidity so your invalidity claim is not invalid? But you are?
That's A. B. is that the chart is meaningless. It created a smoothish-looking curve by fudging the coordinates. I have seen it all, but I haven't seen this type of lie. The scale on the right goes up in equal distances, as expected, "2", "4", "6", and then surprisingly a "5" chimes in, instead of an "8",then it continues... bah.
Other than the very trivial typo - that isn't a big deal given how easily you recognised the correct number to be 8 - that graph is perfectly ok, they've cited their source which publishes the numbers online if you want to check. If I'd got it from The Economist or Bloomberg I imagine they would have been more explicit about which scale referred to which stat. But only the hopelessly stupid can't work that out too.
