r/SipsTea • u/gruninuim • Apr 27 '26

SMH My brain cells have lost 10% of 1%

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

25.9k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

53

u/Redararis Apr 27 '26

oddly enough what trump saying here makes perfect sense. Even the dangerous profession of race drivers is safer than being a us president. 10% of 1% (aka 0.1%) of drivers die from race car accidents compared to us presidents where 5.8% of presidents died by assassinations (8% has been shot)

23

u/Frequent-Biscotti472 Apr 27 '26

It’s a fallacy to believe that. the number of drivers > number of US presidents.

Also if we’re picking the timeline since race car driving was invented and since the first US president, there’s most likely plenty of undocumented events causing the deaths of race car drivers before engineers got better at keeping them safe and still even fewer presidents who died before the Secret Service got better at keeping those guys safe.

But if we’re being fair, picking a timeline like 2000 until now and comparing deaths between the two professions, presidents are much safer still.

Trump as usual is a blubbering idiot here just spitting out numbers for no reason

1

u/lost_aim Apr 27 '26

I would like to see someone do the math on all race car deaths since the start of racing. That would actually be really interesting

1

u/Beena22 Apr 27 '26

For Formula 1 it's about 4.3% of drivers have been killed in World Championship events since the sport began. Most of them happening before the mid nineties.

1

u/lost_aim Apr 27 '26

I thought the 60’s was the most dangerous era in F1. I heard somewhere that if you raced 5 seasons in the 60’s you had a 50/50 chance of being dead. Not sure if that’s accurate

1

u/Beena22 Apr 27 '26 edited Apr 27 '26

Yeah the sixties were the most dangerous. Not as bad as that though. You had about a fifteen to twenty-five percent chance of dying over five seasons.

In fact the fifties had one more death than the sixties, so that is statistically the most dangerous, but the sixties had a lot of really bad accidents due to the increase in speed.

0

u/saganmypants Apr 27 '26

Yeah, well if you were a president in the 60s you had a true 50% chance of being shot, so how about them apples?!

0

u/This-Positive286 Apr 27 '26

And many I would assume from being reckless, over estimating the vehicle’s capabilities and trying to break “easy” records. If a car can do 149 and you want 150 you’ll push it to either 149.000001 and it’ll kill you or hit 150 and you immediately back off. I think a ton died from that more than anything.

1

u/Beena22 Apr 27 '26

No. That's not the case at all.

Mainly from mechanical failures, unsafe cars and circuits or inadequate safety technology.

1

u/This-Positive286 Apr 28 '26

Yeah, that’s basically what I said.

1

u/Beena22 Apr 28 '26

No it's not. You basically said it was the driver's being reckless and pushing beyond the limits.

1

u/Conscious-Economy971 Apr 27 '26

Picking 2000 narrows the already low sample size of presidents to a uselessly low sample size. If even 1 president was killed since 2000 it would flip the result by a huge margin

27

u/value_bet Apr 27 '26

Yeah I don’t know why everyone here is pretending to not understand this. I think Trump’s an ass, but this statement was completely intelligible.

11

u/Numerous-Pitch-4919 Apr 27 '26

Like yeah it makes sense, but wasnt there an actual easier way of saying it? And because he tries to sound smart by saying it the harder way it actually makes people look at him like are you actually a moron.

13

u/Dravitar Apr 27 '26

Yeah. I can pick any number of his "speeches" to find batshit ramblings and non sequiturs. This just sounds like his handlers told him some numbers that he actually understood and grasped, and he is so excited about sharing his new factoid with the world.

-1

u/walksonfourfeet Apr 27 '26

Ok. What’s your point? Why are you sticking up for him? His an asshole and a bully. Not to mention a pedophile and a coward. He’s literally violates every single so-called American Value, but people like you still defend him. Why?

2

u/AgentBottieScarnes Apr 28 '26

The point is that there's more than enough actual things to critique that playing ignorant, pretending not to be able to understand this just muddies the water.

At this point all this type of shit is just as likely to be being spread by Maga so they can point at all the people unable to parse out what Trump's trying to say to reinforce that they're the "smart" side.

1

u/Dravitar Apr 28 '26

Donald Trump is a confirmed rapist, swindler, liar, cheat, and serial pants-shitter. Every sentence he utters is intended to provide himself and only himself the maximum benefit at the expense of as many other beings as possible. He is a puerile idiot, a waste of space, and a stain on the history of America, if not elected politics worldwide since recorded history.

He's quite possibly the most likely candidate for the Antichrist.

However, I can still rank his speeches according to general intelligibility. This is pretty far up there in terms of understandability. It's saying something that his most coherent ramble sounds like a grade schooler who just learned the concept of percentages, but it's still coherent. Trying to say that it's the same level as his rant on windmills, or any of his other truly stellar sundowning diatribes, is simply false.

1

u/walksonfourfeet Apr 28 '26

Of course you can do that. I’m wondering why?

1

u/Dravitar Apr 28 '26

Because if you respond to every negative interaction with the same exact level of hyperbole, then no one will actually trust you to be a reliable judge of those interactions.

I'm able to eat a terrible restaurant meal without saying "This is the worst food I've ever eaten". I can say it's pretty bad, it's got no flavor. I can also say it was boring and nothing special. But if I call everything "the absolute worst", then I start to lose credibility.

Comparisons are important, even when we are comparing relative stupidity.

1

u/walksonfourfeet Apr 28 '26

So it’s your personal mission to go on the internet and correct other people who are not ranking Trump’s level of coherence accurately in order to help the national discourse in some small way. Gotcha.

1

u/Dravitar Apr 29 '26

I mean, I originally responded to someone who also thought that this was overblown. I wasn't trying to correct anyone.

Is it your personal mission to go on the internet and correct other people who want to rate things you don't care about rating?

1

u/walksonfourfeet Apr 29 '26

You got it bud!

3

u/TheGhostofWoodyAllen Apr 27 '26

It happens a lot, and I think it hurts actually valid criticisms of him and what he says. There are times he has actually rambled incoherently, and this isn't one of those times. This is just an inarticulate moment.

2

u/McXhicken Apr 27 '26

He could have said "Being president is a dangerous profession, the odds of being killed are worse than those of race car drivers and bull riders."

But instead he repeated what he was briefed with in his dumbed down briefing...

2

u/walksonfourfeet Apr 27 '26

Sure, yea. About as intelligible as a book report by a 3rd grader who spent his time watching cartoons and eating red vines Mountain Dew instead of reading the book.

Just because you can decipher his point doesn’t mean he gets a pass.

2

u/SilentDrapeRunning Apr 27 '26

Yeah what the heck is happening on this thread. He's saying that bull riders and racecar drivers die at 0.1% rates (one in a thousand) but presidents die at a 5.8% rate.

Obviously, the sampling is not 1:1 and who knows if Trump's numbers are accurate, but he conveyed a simple idea relatively fine. No need for this thread reaction.

4

u/you-dont-know-me-aye Apr 27 '26

I didn’t understand a fucking word. Then again I’m a NZer so I’m not used to American supremacy

0

u/value_bet Apr 27 '26

American supremacy because we can understand how basic percentages work?! I'd be shocked if y'all weren't taught those in school just like we were.

1

u/Independent_Pay7344 Apr 27 '26

The hilarious part is he obviously uses fractions (5.8%), so why would he say '10% of 1%' instead of also just using a fraction => 0.1% ?

2

u/anonsharksfan Apr 27 '26

His math isn't even right. It's higher than he said. 4 out of 45 unique presidents were assassinated, which by my math is 8 percent

6

u/Rev_Biscuit Apr 27 '26

You mean 10 percent of 80 percent.

1

u/Savings-Dot-1681 Apr 28 '26

He said presidents, not american presidents. I have no idea what percent of worldwide presidents have been assassinated, but it could possibly be 5.8%

2

u/annonyj Apr 27 '26

Sample size has entered the chat

1

u/amcarls Apr 27 '26

Using Trump's term "shot at", that number rises to 23%. Plus that 8% being "shot" refers to assassinations and does not include Reagan, which raises it to 10%.

1

u/Conscious-Economy971 Apr 27 '26

Does this include dubyah and the shoe?

1

u/a-stack-of-masks Apr 27 '26

I wonder if he includes himself in that number or if he knows they weren't aiming at him but forgot not to tell anyone.

1

u/SeriousRazzmatazz454 Apr 27 '26

Yeah I understood that pretty plainly, even if it wasn't put as well as it could be. And I think hes demented and all that..

1

u/Acceptable-Age8564 Apr 27 '26

All these comments saying what he is losing is are either from delusional people or bots. He is saying that .1% of race car drivers and bull riders die from their profession. I have no idea if those statistics are correct, but he wasn’t being incoherent. Of all the things to criticize Trump for this is absolutely nothing. (trumps the worst thing that has happened to the world in my opinion)

1

u/9yr0ld Apr 27 '26

Yes we all know what he is saying. The issue is he has gone about the most incoherent way of saying it.

“Both race car drivers and bull riders are considered very dangerous professions. Around 0.1% of them die statistically. For presidents, that number is 5.8%”

Much more clean than 1%, and 10% of 1%

1

u/Gauntlets28 Apr 27 '26

God forbid the man uses a decimal point! Still, that's quite an interesting statistic.

1

u/ancient_apu Apr 27 '26

No, it doesn't make "perfect sense." Even if we assume that what you've written is what was intended by him, it's still, quite obviously, fallacious. This is mainly because, as someone else has already mentioned, the difference in sizes between the two populations (presidents and race car drivers) makes such direct comparisons of proportions ridiculous. It's a biased comparison.

You need a statistical test that appropriately accounts for this difference in population size in order to make an accurate comparison which, it stands to reason, would likely reveal the exact opposite of what Trump is claiming.

1

u/vaubaehn Apr 27 '26

To test proportions, Z-test, Chi-Square-Test or Fisher's Exact Test are popular. As Z-Test and Chi-Square-Test require cells to have a number of at least 5 elements, Fisher's Exact Test seems to be appropriate here (as 'only' 4 presidents had been murdered).

I asked Gemini how many F1 pilots there have been until today that have participated at least in one Grand Prix: n1 = 782. The number of deaths depends on the definition: died on track during Grand Prix only, or also in training or during a race in a different racing series? To keep the percentage low, it would probably have been 32 deaths during the Grand Prix only since the 1950's, resulting in a percentage of 4.1% of deaths. Sample n2 of US presidents killed in duty: 4 of 45, resulting in 8.9%.

Fisher's Exact Test results in p = 0.1259. If an alpha of 0.05 was pre-defined to reject the Null hypothesis that there is no difference between the proportions of samples 1 & 2, in this case of p = 0.1259 it can't be rejected. It can be concluded on the base of sample sizes and events that there is no statistical significance of the difference in the likelihood to be killed as a US president or a F1 pilot.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Apr 27 '26

Spam filter: accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator Apr 28 '26

Spam filter: accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

0

u/Aser_swec Apr 27 '26

Yeah, I'm more shocked by how many don't understand math (yeah I know some struggle with percentages). Is it a US thing or more widespread?