Thank you. Incredibly misleading analysis normalizing by violent crimes. Many untrained people won’t notice this either, making this actually feel manipulative

Yes. A state with 100 violent crimes and 1000 innocent people unrelatedly shot by by police is the exact same as a state with 1 violent crime and 10 innocent people shot in this dataset. 990 innocent people shot completely ignored by this irrelevant normalization.

This is a misleading analysis

My point is that this is a pointless and misleading dataset because you’re regularizing on something nonsensical. If you can’t understand that then I advise you to revisit it your notes from your Stats 101 class

But you’re regularizing on something irrelevant. Your data views a state where 1000 innocent people are shot and 100 violent crimes occur the exact same as a state where 10 innocent people are shot and 1 violent crime happens. Those are the same data point in your set. Do you not see how insane that is? 990 more innocents killed in the first state, completely ignored because there’s more violent crimes?

It has literally everything to do with it? The assertion that more training = less shootings is only relevant because there have been many high profile incidents of cops shooting nonviolent individuals. You’re literally exempting all of these high profile - relevant - examples from your analysis.

An analogy:

Person A presents a graph showing that more driving training correlates to safer driving. This is pretty obvious because trained drivers are more prepared to drive under less than ideal circumstances like traffic, rain, etc.

Person B (you) presents a graph showing that in clear weather with no traffic, additional driving instruction doesn’t have much correlation with safer driving. This is obviously true, but erroneously presenting it as evidence that training has no correlation with safety is misleading.

Under ideal circumstances the training doesn’t matter as much. What society cares about is the fringe cases where training actually matters. You’re completely ignoring the important cases and trying to present the boring obvious leftovers as if they’re important.

I completely disagree. You’re ignoring the context of the data in a society where unjust police brutality frequently makes headlines. This is either intentionally or ignorantly misleading analytics

Shootings/violent crimes is a pointless statistic for the argument you’re trying to indirectly push. Violent criminals being shot isn’t the huge problem - it’s nonviolent criminals being unjustly shot

Don’t think anyone can make a statement like that, it’s entirely subjective to try to guess what social norms will be in the future. Not to mention that refusing to advance science because you’re worried that people will think it’s icky is stupid.

Isn’t one of the benefits to insects that it DOES work better at scale than plants? Why do you think they won’t?