>>76416227to add to this
don't only read the fucking headline of retarded / click bait news outlets
even tiny changes can be statistically relevant
but irl completely irrelevant for the individual
you can then easily cherry pick / manipulatively display those numbers
an all time favorite for example is
>some cause mortalitywhich then often says
>reduce risk of dying from XYZ by 25%when in reality it's like instead of 4 of 100.000 people in a given year die, it's now 3 of 100.000
technically correct, maybe statistically relevant, but not actually useful for everyday life
a LOT of nutritional studies are exactly like this btw