Comment on cherry pickers

MyDarkestTimeline01@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• P1k1e@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Anti vaxers cherry pick information to state their claims are correct. Therefore they’re super good at it

  source

  • MyDarkestTimeline01@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Ahhhhhhhhhh. That would make sense. My mind initially was asking if there was some form of an extract or essential oil that came from cherries that they claimed was a wonder anti drug.

    source

    • angrystego@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I thought the death rate among antivaxers was so high that they provide regular fertilization for the trees.

      source

      • Pot8o@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        That was my thought too. Nothing like a bit of blood and bone to get plants growing. Something, something…it’s what plants crave!

        source
  • gnutrino@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    There’s also a sort of second level of the joke in that reporting on the results for a single orchard is in itself cherry picking.

    source
  • InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I thought they kept dying and adding nurtiants to the soil

    source
  • tdawg@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    My dumbass thought it was programming related

    source

    • neatobuilds@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I thought like the cherry picker carts that help you drive around at elevated altitude

      source
• fossilesque@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  For the sleepy brains and ESL-ers: It is an idiom.

  source

  • tetris11@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I still don’t get the 340% increase in the production part though.

    source

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      They’re very experienced at cherry picking, since they do it all the time. Therefore they’re able to do it better / faster than most.

      source
    • ceenote@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Anti-vaxxers love cherry picking.

      source

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Yeah, but if your results are only a biased subset of your total gamut (vaccers + anti-vaccers) then 340% is still an astonishing result when only taking your preferred group.

        It actually does build credibility that the group you’re biased towards had the most significant result.

        If the total gains were 1000% including contributions from both groups, then yes I can understand the point the post is making (340 from anti-vaccers, 660 from vaccers, clear cherry-picking).

        But 340 is already an incredibly high number, so it sort of weakens the post, if you catch my meaning

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • walden@sub.wetshaving.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Me either, but assuming it’s a real screenshot, the date is 2018. I didn’t do much digging, but 2018 saw an increase in cherry crops according to this source upnorthlive.com/…/usda-2018-cherry-crop-productio….

      An overall increase of 60% is pretty big! If this specific farm had an especially bad year in 2017, a 340% increase isn’t out of the question.

      source

      • fossilesque@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        It’s from an Onion-esq science blog.

        source

        • -> View More Comments