Editing Talk:2471: Hippo Attacks

<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->
'Hippo violation' refers to Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA or the Kennedy–Kassebaum Act) - probably ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.95|172.69.35.95]] 22:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
:I've worked with demographic data and experienced the removal of datapoints with only a couple people in them, because the statistics would reveal the details of the people.  [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.48|172.70.114.48]] 22:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
:Strictly speaking, wouldn't this be a HIPOO violation? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.171|172.68.142.171]] 22:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
:Alternatively, it may refer to violation of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath Hippocratic Oath] which include provision to respect patients' privacy [[User:Aufa|Aufa]] ([[User talk:Aufa|talk]])
"But, counting every body of water on the planet, this works out as around 400 (unique) waves per square meter" - Can we get a source for this information? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.20|108.162.221.20]] 11:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
:The Wikipedia article "Earth", in the section "Surface", says that the area of the oceans is 361.13 million sq km (their source: CIA's World Factbook). If so, then 850 trillion waves would average out to 2.354 million waves per sq km, or 2.354 waves per square meter.--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.172|172.70.110.172]] 12:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
::But… is “area“ referring to the actual surface area of the world’s oceans, which are three-dimensional, or are they assuming a flat surface within the perimeter? Not only that, is this value determined based on the mean value between tides? Finally, of course, if we are looking at the true surface area, including the undulations, that would be a remarkably much larger number then that calculated by merely looking at a flat surface within a perimeter. I’ll hang up and listen for the answer.[[User:Dhugot|Dhugot]] ([[User talk:Dhugot|talk]]) 21:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
:even my cup of water?
:I inserted the '(unique)' to the edit, among other things (I thought presuming stormy waters was overkill), taking on trust the number-per had been worked out accurately ahead of time. Maybe the original author of that ''had'' accounted for how many square metres a wave might cover (and thus combine with other waves nominally belonging to other ²m units).
:Assuming the 2ish waves value is correct (for one thing, assuming it's a US Trillion, which is likely; but the alternative can't account for the factor of ~175, regardless) then do change it, but any significant wave does exist in a greater area than 1m² both in width and between pairs of troughs, so two waves or ripples assigned to one area (prob. crossing paths) will probably also be mixed up with 'other square's waves'.
:Naturally, I presume the actual figure given is a ridiculously made-up one, but if we're justifying/highlighting this belief then these are the considerations I'd give to the matter. Even if the maths isn't perfect. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.161|141.101.99.161]] 13:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

From the title-text: "Some random guess will get cited everywhere and become the universally quoted value." This might be a reference to [[Citogenesis]]? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.147|172.68.132.147]] 15:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Side note: the title text talks about waves *in* the ocean, not *on* the ocean. This means that localized, sub-surface waves should also be considered as well as any waves caused by even small seismic events. [[User:Cwallenpoole|Cwallenpoole]] ([[User talk:Cwallenpoole|talk]]) 18:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

If one counts whale song, sonar pings, https://inshorts.com/m/en/news/herring-fish-communicate-through-farts-1490104994916 maybe mr munroe's number is still a wag. Dunno.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.104|108.162.216.104]] 00:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

This random listicle [https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/verify/verify-are-mosquitoes-really-the-deadliest-animals-on-earth/507-578093577 "VERIFY: Are mosquitoes really the deadliest animals on earth?"] seems to have done a pretty good job at finding the actual sources for the numbers in [https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/Most-Lethal-Animal-Mosquito-Week the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation] blog post about the deadliest animals. Interestingly it says "there are no official studies on Hippopotamus attacks and fatalities. This number could not be verified." Might it really be that they are no studies available? If yes, we should probably mention it in the explanation. [[User:CryptoNut1269|CryptoNut1269]] ([[User talk:CryptoNut1269|talk]]) 16:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Latest revision		Your text
Line 19:		Line 19:

	This random listicle [https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/verify/verify-are-mosquitoes-really-the-deadliest-animals-on-earth/507-578093577 "VERIFY: Are mosquitoes really the deadliest animals on earth?"] seems to have done a pretty good job at finding the actual sources for the numbers in [https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/Most-Lethal-Animal-Mosquito-Week the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation] blog post about the deadliest animals. Interestingly it says "there are no official studies on Hippopotamus attacks and fatalities. This number could not be verified." Might it really be that they are no studies available? If yes, we should probably mention it in the explanation. [[User:CryptoNut1269\|CryptoNut1269]] ([[User talk:CryptoNut1269\|talk]]) 16:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)		This random listicle [https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/verify/verify-are-mosquitoes-really-the-deadliest-animals-on-earth/507-578093577 "VERIFY: Are mosquitoes really the deadliest animals on earth?"] seems to have done a pretty good job at finding the actual sources for the numbers in [https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/Most-Lethal-Animal-Mosquito-Week the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation] blog post about the deadliest animals. Interestingly it says "there are no official studies on Hippopotamus attacks and fatalities. This number could not be verified." Might it really be that they are no studies available? If yes, we should probably mention it in the explanation. [[User:CryptoNut1269\|CryptoNut1269]] ([[User talk:CryptoNut1269\|talk]]) 16:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
−
−	HIPAA wouldn't apply under any circumstance - at even the cause of death for 500 people that's a sufficient amount to be able to talk about the data without any PHI (protected heath information like their name or SSN) On top of that HIPAA only covers Hospitals, Clinics, and providers, any random person that isn't acting as one of those roles can release any medical information they want. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.13\|162.158.74.13]] 16:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)