The entire point was that the metrics I chose were bad. Furthermore they were such minor differences that even if they weren't bad they still wouldn't be relevant. They were intended to be comically useless.
It means that the hypothetical author of the article didn't have any idea what they're reporting, which is exactly what I was trying to express. The authors rely on the readers' ignorance and the way many people reflexively accept numeric data as true, pertinent, and sufficient evidence of any claim.
If you actually read the article, why would you choose an irrelevant metric that is basically uncorrelated with the actual content of the article to prove your point?
I realize it's just a blog post and not a scientific paper, but the author didn't even cite a source for that statistic. My gut reaction is that it's probably incredibly misleading if not outright false.
reply