It’s going up to 164 for a 10 year within Canada, 260 something from outside Canada. $164/$160 != “a much bigger increase than 2.7%”. God I wish people could read sometimes.
More or less productive than not reading the article and then commenting blatantly incorrect statements while leading with “the article is wrong”?
Like if you didn’t read it that’s fine, but then why comment? And why comment on the facts of the article? The $160 number and $260 number are in the same sentence, how do you read one and not the other?
It’s even one thing to be wrong, but to be wrong and confidently assert that the article is wrong? Just wild behavior imo.
It’s going up to 164 for a 10 year within Canada, 260 something from outside Canada. $164/$160 != “a much bigger increase than 2.7%”. God I wish people could read sometimes.
Not a productive comment. Could have just pointed it out.
More or less productive than not reading the article and then commenting blatantly incorrect statements while leading with “the article is wrong”?
Like if you didn’t read it that’s fine, but then why comment? And why comment on the facts of the article? The $160 number and $260 number are in the same sentence, how do you read one and not the other?
It’s even one thing to be wrong, but to be wrong and confidently assert that the article is wrong? Just wild behavior imo.