1179
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 days ago

Alright, this is my last message, but I'll try to explain it. This is an example of DeMorgan's law.

Let's call "support" A, and "50%" B, just so we can move it away from natural language. Not A means "not support" or "don't support".

The headline can be expressed as "not A < B". Using DeMorgan's law, we can change that to an equivalent statement of "A >= B".

Now, convert it back to natural language and that's "support >= 50%".

Again, I'm not making a claim on the validity. I am only expressing what the headline says. Headlines can be wrong, and the article may even contradict it. That doesn't affect the headline though.

[-] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 1 points 3 days ago

I understand your pedantry. And I explained the rationale.

Not sure why you felt the need to restate it, no one is confused.

Damn, y'all two are splitting the dumbest fucking hairs.

this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2026
1179 points (98.3% liked)

Work Reform

17244 readers
72 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS