Why? Is there something about their dataset and/or methodology that you can identify as deficient that would indicate that the rate is much higher than what was published?
I agree with the sentiment, but if you want anyone to do anything about it we need evidence and not vibes.
I'm trying to help you make your case. So far the only comments in this thread are the most low-effort reactions that don't say anything substantive.
I agree with the sentiment, but if you want anyone to do anything about it we need evidence and not vibes.
I'm trying to help you make your case. So far the only comments in this thread are the most low-effort reactions that don't say anything substantive.