Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TheWaterBound t1_j6jklig wrote

Because huge numbers with tiny percentage differences are massively different.

Suppose the content library was 10,000 properties. You reduce that number by 2.66% and you're removing 266 properties. If you supposed the difference was 20% films, 40% short series and 40% traditional US style series, that would be, say, .226690+.4266360+.4266946 = just under 2,400 content hours.

What determines significant in this context is how much less stuff you've got to watch. I think having 200 fewer shows and movies is a significant difference.

>It sounds more like cope than anything honestly. "Oh the content library is so large that you should ignore the percentage because then it doesn't make the point I might want it to."

Search: construct validity.

Percentages are not a good way of measuring a lot of things. This is one of them.

0

Mirororim t1_j6oaab9 wrote

> Percentages are not a good way of measuring a lot of things.

True.

>This is one of them.

Not true, and you've failed to show that.

You could've made this argument on a quality front, like maybe the 2.66% that's missing on Netflix Canada but is available on Netflix US is the content that everyone watches, but you failed to do so (likely because I suspect that you'd be wrong to make this argument).

Just going "Total too big so no percentage please" means nothing.

>What determines significant in this context is how much less stuff you've got to watch. I think having 200 fewer shows and movies is a significant difference.

Why 200? Why not 250? Why not 5000? Why not 10? I want my 10 movies. If I don't have those 10 movies Americans have I'll scream. Give them to me.

1

TheWaterBound t1_j6oaohn wrote

>Why 200? Why not 250? Why not 5000? Why not 10? I want my 10 movies. If I don't have those 10 movies Americans have I'll scream. Give them to me.

Congratulations, you have made the argument for me.

1