Tenniswaffles

Damn, I wish that were me

Actually, after some further thought I've realised I was wrong actually. If you were to use the phrasing "decimated 10 percent of the population", it wouldn't be redundant it would just be straight up wrong. To decimate 10 percent of a population would mean either you killed 10 percent of 10 percent of the population (i.e. 1 percent), or it would mean you've killed a large proportion of that 10 percent of the population.

And of course my point about how using the phrase "decimating the population" on its own would lead to confusion for most people because when people think of "a large proportion of", people generally think that it's more than 10 percent.

You've been engaged enough to type out replies. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

Your original comment didn't stand "perfectly well on its own", actually. Decimate meaning to destroy or kill a large proportion of something is just as literal as the definition you're using, only the definition I'm using is much more commonly used and understood, so it generally takes precedence.

Everything about you and your smarmy act is redundant. Can you shut the fuck up? Thanks.

If you want someone to shut up on the internet, the best way to do it is to not engage them. Works just about every time in my experience. But you cared enough to engage and then engage again.

And if you don't like smarmy people explaining things with a holier than thou attitude, engaging in internet discussion might not be the thing for you, you little piss baby.

That room looks expensive, so hope they'll be my sugar daddy

Unnecessary or superfluous. For example: calling an ATM (automated teller machine) an "ATM machine".

You seem to have missed the example I gave.

If it were phrased "they decimated 10 percent of the population" you're either using the word as people understand it wrong or your saying they killed 10 percent of the population twice right next to each other, which is you know, redundant.

What would be redundant in this circumstance is saying decimate (e.g. to kill 10 percent of a group) 10 percent of the population. This is of course assuming that the person reading it knows the historical definition of decimate.

Furthermore I used the two different phrasings as examples because if you just wrote "they decimated the population", most people would assume a number larger than 10 percent. But if you try and clarify by stating "they decimated 10 percent of the population", and they know its historical definition, you're being redundant.

So in conclusion, using decimate would either confuse people or be redundant.

As an aside; when you're trying to report something, whether that be a current event or a historical one, you should be using language that the most people will be able to understand for the sake of clarity.

If it were phrased "they decimated the population" most would assume from the phrasing that it mean that you're saying that a large proportion was killed, because that's how that word is actually used in the English language. If it were phrased "they decimated 10 percent of the population" you're either using the word as people understand it wrong or your saying they killed 10 percent of the population twice right next to each other, which is you know, redundant.

The definition of words reflect how we use them. An interesting fact is that scientists use Latin for scientific names of things because no one speaks Latin so the meanings of those words will not change with time. It's the same in courts, you'll find that a lot of old English words that aren't commonly used in everyday conversation are used and that's so that the meaning of things stay consistent over time.

Most people don't know the historical definition of decimate, so using here it would be confusing or redundant.

Just like me fr

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2625386/

https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-not-a-modern-phenomenon.php

https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/life-expectancy-measure-misperception/

Logically, average life expectancy cannot be higher than average lifespan. For that to be true would mean that more people who made it out of childhood lived past their expected lifespan than didn't, which doesn't make sense.

If the expected lifespan is 38, than the average life expectancy before medical science advanced to the point where we could extend it should be lower than 38, but we in fact know that more often than not if you made it out of childhood in the past your chances of making it to 50+ were good, barring disease, war or what have you.

I want to die

Just googled "best Linux distro for gaming," and got about 10 different recommendations.

You're literally the person your quote is describing lol