I won’t say data are. I know it’s grammatically correct but I’m not doing it. I’m also not going to say datum.

I’m also not changing plural RBIs to RBI in baseball.

Nice effort. Put the lake size in a logarithmic scale and we have a shot at reading the names of the smaller lakes

[removed]

Why did this get downvote bombed? It's a fair question

[deleted]

[deleted]

I just did the same Google searches and got the opposite results:

• Data is: 1,240,000,000
• Data are: 881,000,000

It’s exactly this.

This is dependent upon which form of English you speak. Neither is more correct than the other just as no one language’s grammar rules are any “more correct” than any other language’s rules.

Could it possibly be a regional thing, like how team is plural in British English and singular in American English?

[removed]

True

So does it indicate anything interesting... ?

Having data is cool, knowing how to interpret it is cooler, which I failed

Data obtained from quick Google searches. Visualization produced using ggplot2 in R.

That's literally why no poll can ever be 0% or 100%.

The US is only 79% literate, so I'm just going to chalk this up to those people guessing.

Idk, I mean I know someone who’s parents were furriers and they said they basically closed up shop after the 08 recession. They just do storage and reconditioning now as new fur sales have basically no demand.

it's going up, but not that fast. In the last 10 days or so, Shasta, the biggest reservoir, has gone up from 1.44 million acre feet to 1.58 million acre feet. This increase is 3% of the total reservoir storage capacity.

To even have a market cap, a company also needs to be publicly available at the market in the first place. In many European countries, it is much more common to have privately owned billion-dollar companies than in the US, where the stock market plays a much bigger role.

So what word would you use that's better?

[removed]

I mean that’s my take away haha

It doesn't matter what I prefer, that's not the argument I'm making.

I've said repeatedly, eating less meat is not a bad thing. There's plenty of benefits to it. I've even cut down my own portions.

My problem is with believing you're saving animals by doing so.

thanks! glad you are finding it interesting.

This is a terrible way to show the relative values. Stacking them 5 wide means you can't directly compare anything. Just show a simple bar.

You are preventing animals being born into a life of suffering. What word would you prefer?