India Took a Shocking 33 Years to Develop a Jet Fighter (And It’s Still Not Ready for Combat)

[gslv mk3]

Of course, sunshine.

If you can't be bothered to read the report then,

Read: India tops world hunger list with 194 million people (The Hindu)

Genius, they are always referred in percentages, not absolute numbers. Go and educate world bank.

Second, food insecurity is an individual or household phenomenon, and the average food available to each person, even corrected for possible effects of low income, is not a good predictor of food insecurity among the population.

And this error doesn't apply to your worse hunger situation ? The fact is that you have a higher percentage of undernourished population.

Here is another indicator GHI, which does not include data on malnutrition.

http://ghi.ifpri.org/

 

[Khanate]

Genius, they are always referred in percentages, not absolute numbers. Go and educate world bank. And this error doesn't apply to your worse hunger situation ? The fact is that you have a higher percentage of undernourished population.

Are you stupid or something?

The usage warning comes with the indicator (SN.ITK.DEFC.ZS) you provided. I'm guessing you have never worked with data sets before or actual know what to look for beyond "percentages". We are talking statistics 101 here.

As for the absolute number, of course that is how you understand data and develop models. Pakistan hasn't done a census since 1998 so how on earth can the % be reliable?

If you want to go in denial about India's #1 status, be my guest. It doesn't change the reality.

Here is another indicator GHI, which does not include data on malnutrition.

http://ghi.ifpri.org/

I know about GHI (Global Hunger Index), they have created their own 'score' to avoid problems that comes with %. Like I said, learn to use indicators properly. And both India (28.5) and Pakistan (33.4) are rated at "serious" hunger levels according to GHI. India is not in a different category.

 

[kṣamā]

@gslv mk3 : Just don't. You are ridding a dead stick buddy. Bail out.

 

[gslv mk3]

I know about GHI (Global Hunger Index), they have created their own 'score' to avoid problems that comes with %. Like I said, learn to use indicators properly. And both India (28.5) and Pakistan (33.4) are rated at "serious" hunger levels according to GHI. India is not in a different category.

Ha, now this ? It is a clear indication that India's hunger situation is better than Pakistan.

Are you stupid or something?

The usage warning comes with the indicator (SN.ITK.DEFC.ZS) you provided. I'm guessing you have never worked with data sets before or actual know what to look for beyond "percentages". We are talking statistics 101 here.

As for the absolute number, of course that is how you understand data and develop models. Pakistan hasn't done a census since 1998 so how on earth can the % be reliabl

The warning also applies to absolute numbers, genius. Even if you consider same amount of error for both the countries, India's extent of malnutrition comes as lower.

 

[Khanate]

Ha, now this ? It is a clear indication that India's hunger situation is better than Pakistan.

Of course, India is better. India is #1.

Here more balloons.

 

[gslv mk3]

Of course, India is better. India is #1.

Here more balloon.

Nah we don't.

You have the worst hunger situation in whole south Asia. Hiding behind absolute numbers wouldn't work anymore

And the worst HDI score in South Asia

And the worst literacy rate in South Asia

 

[Khanate]

The warning also applies to absolute numbers, genius. Even if you consider same amount of error for both the countries, India's extent of malnutrition comes as lower.

Amateur hour.

The limitation warning I posted came with the indicator (SN.ITK.DEFC.ZS) you posted. I only highlighted it.

Please post the limitation warnings that come with complete data sets which includes the raw number (194 million).

Seriously, if you don't know what you're talking about then you should limit yourself to what you know best. It would avoid embarrassing situations like these.

Nah we don't. You have the worst hunger situation in whole south Asia.

India #1 in the World, let alone South Asia. Do you want more balloons?

Nah we don't.

You have the worst hunger situation in whole south Asia. Hiding behind absolute numbers wouldn't work anymore

And the worst HDI score in South Asia

And the worst literacy rate in South Asia

Can you edit your post a few more times?

 

[gslv mk3]

Amateur hour.

The limitation warning I posted came with the indicator (SN.ITK.DEFC.ZS) you posted. I only highlighted it.

Please post the limitation warnings that come with complete data sets which includes the raw number (194 million).

Your own link Beta. Do you think that these absolute number & percentages are two different datasets ? You know what a percentage is ?

Can you edit your post a few more times?

There are several indicators which track your progress really well.

If you want to go in denial about India's #1 status, be my guest. It doesn't change the reality.

Beta, it is you who is in denial, not me. Pakistan has worse hunger situation than India.

 

[Khanate]

Your own link Beta. Do you think that these absolute number & percentages are two different datasets ? You know what a percentage is ?

Learn how to use indicators, amateur. Else you'll continue to look foolish.

Here's the screenshot of SN.ITK.DEFC.ZS with clear limitation warnings for the indicator.

Now either you post a screenshot just as I did, or even the limitations text, for the raw numbers from the data set or you have no point. Honestly, you have no idea of what you're talking about. You have never handled a data set before in your life nor do you know what to do with one.

Beta, it is you who is in denial, not me. Pakistan has worse hunger situation than India.

Denialism is strong in this one.

You're purely conjecturing at this point because your own indicator doesn't agree with you. Enjoy India's #1 status.

 

[gslv mk3]

Here's the screenshot of SN.ITK.DEFC.ZS with clear limitation warnings for the indicator.

Genius, percentages are found by relating the absolute numbers with the population. The same warnings should be applied to absolute numbers too.

And if you didn't knew the source for the world bank data is the same FAO report from which you quoted absolute numbers.

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf

Enjoy India's #1 status.

Nopes Enjoy Pakistan's number 1 status with 22% undernourished population.

 

[Khanate]

Genius, percentages are found by relating the absolute numbers with the population. The same warnings should be applied to absolute numbers too.

You are not even trying anymore, quitter.

The limitation warnings are specific to SN.ITK.DEFC.ZS, how can this limitation apply to a base dataset? You can't possibly be that thick. Or are you? Either post the limitation warning or move along.

Nopes Enjoy Pakistan's number 1 status with 22% undernourished population.

Spectacularly delusional.

Now tell your breakthrough discovery to your own media.

The Hindu: India tops world hunger list with 194 million people

 

[gslv mk3]

You are not even trying anymore, quitter.

The limitation warnings are specific to SN.ITK.DEFC.ZS, how can this limitation apply to a base dataset? You can't possibly be that thick. Or are you?

No beta, it applies to FAO's databases. Including the reports you have quoted.

From World Bank's World Development Indicators 2010, page 139. Read up

And what is the source for world bank database ? 'The State of Food and Agriculture' report by FAO which you've posted.

And if you're yet not unconvinced, read the report(Smith & Haddad) they've been citing- page 7 of it.

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/94515/2/explaining child malnutrition in developing countries.pdf

 

[Khanate]

No beta, it applies to FAO's databases. Including the reports you have quoted.

It is one thing to be ignorant, totally another to lie. You just lied in a public forum, indiot. Shame on you for that!

First, amateur, I asked you to provide me the limitation warning on the base dataset, not 'database'. By definition, limitation warnings of an indicator cannot apply to the dataset because indicators are driven by them. You are dumb to even suggest otherwise.

Observe the two indicators and their corresponding limitations:

Indicator A: Prevalence of undernourishment (% of population) (SN.ITK.DEFC.ZS)

Limitations:

Indicator B: Prevalence of severe wasting, weight for height (% of children under 5) (SH.SVR.WAST.ZS)

Limitations:

Are the limitation warnings on the two indicators the same? NO!

Different indicators, different applications, ergo, different limitations!

You have never, even once, in your life worked with a dataset. Hence, you;re clueless. Stick with what you know or you look foolish as you do right now.

From World Bank's World Development Indicators 2010, page 139. Read up

World Development Indicators 2010 report does not have *ANY* base datasets, or "raw number" as you called them like a second grader. It is referencing limitations on the same indicators. Look at Page 138. Do you see any base dataset ("raw numbers")? No, the report only has indicators driven from the base datasets hence the limitation warnings.

World Development Indicators — Page 139

World Development Indicators — Page 136 (Where are the "raw numbers"? These are indicators (%) hence the limitation warnings!)

World Development Indicators — Page 137 (Where are the "raw numbers"? Only indicators (%) hence the limitation warnings!)

World Development Indicators — Page 138 (Where are the "raw numbers"? Only indicators (%) hence the limitation warnings!)

So where did you see the base dataset here? These are only indicators and hence the corresponding limitations which the report highlights.

And what is the source for world bank database ? 'The State of Food and Agriculture' report by FAO which you've posted.

View attachment 359533

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of United Nations provides complete datasets. World Bank is using FAO dataset with either their own indicators, or pre-classified ones. The indicator you posted has several limitations that contradicts your claims. Having made an amateur mistake, now you are deep denial. I provided you a direct reference to FAO since, unlike you, I know what I'm doing.

Don't lie on a public forum again. It makes you look bad.

 

[gslv mk3]

It is one think to be ignorant, totally another to lie. You just lied in a public forum, indiot. Shame on you for that!

First, amateur, I asked you to provide me the limitation warning on the base dataset, not 'database'. By definition, limitation warnings of an indicator cannot apply to the dataset because indicators are driven by them. You are dumb to even suggest otherwise.

Observe the two indicators and their corresponding limitations:

Indicator A: Prevalence of undernourishment (% of population) (SN.ITK.DEFC.ZS)

Limitations:

Indicator B: Prevalence of severe wasting, weight for height (% of children under 5) (SH.SVR.WAST.ZS)

Limitations:

Are the limitation warnings on the two indicators the same? NO!

Different indicators, different applications, ergo, different limitations!

You have never, even once, in your life worked with a dataset. Hence, you;re clueless. Stick with what you know or you look foolish as you do right now.




World Development Indicators 2010 report does not have *ANY* base datasets, or "raw number" as you called them like a second grader. It is referencing limitations on the same indicators. Look at Page 140. Do you see any base dataset ("raw numbers")? No, the report only has indicators driven from the base datasets hence the limitation warnings.

World Development Indicators — Page 139

World Development Indicators — Page 140 (Where are the "raw numbers"? These are indicators (%) hence the limitation warnings!)

World Development Indicators — Page 141 (Where are the "raw numbers"? Only indicators (%) hence the limitation warnings!)

World Development Indicators — Page 142 (Where are the "raw numbers"? Only indicators (%) hence the limitation warnings!)

So where did you see the base dataset here? It only has indicators and the corresponding limitations which the report highlights, idiot.

View attachment 359532




Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of United Nations provides complete datasets. World Bank is using FAO dataset with either their own indicators or pre-classified ones. The indicator you posted has several limitations that contradicts your claims. Having made an amateur mistake, now you are deep denial. I provided you a direct reference to FAO because, unlike you, I know what I'm doing.

Don't lie on a public forum agai
n. It makes you look bad.

Still in denial ? I said refer to page 139 of World Development report. The dataset is given in the previous page.

WB uses the same data as FAO. The percentages I gave is also given in the FAO report.

India had 15.2% of its population (194 million) undernourished whereas Pakistan has 22% (44 million), which still puts Pakistan way ahead.

 

[Khanate]

Still in denial ?

No doubt you're in deep denial and lying profusely.

I said refer to page 139 of World Development report. The dataset is given in the previous page.

More lies.

World Development Indicators 2010 report, page 136—139 posted above, contains *ONLY* indicators (%) which is why it lists corresponding limitation warnings. There is *NO* base dataset as you claim where you can see "raw numbers". Point out, where is the 194 million figure?

Honestly, the more you lie, the worse it gets for you.

ndia had 15.2% of its population (194 million) undernourished whereas Pakistan has 22% (44 million), which still puts Pakistan way ahead.

And 194 million undernourished people makes India #1 in the World (The Hindu). I'm glad you're using that figure though.

As for the %, the limitation warnings on the indicator contradicts your claims.

--

Food insecurity is an individual or household phenomenon, and the average food available to each person, even corrected for possible effects of low income, is not a good predictor of food insecurity among the population.

--

Total amateur hour.

Genius, percentages are found by relating the absolute numbers with the population. The same warnings should be applied to absolute numbers too.

This is what you claimed earlier.

Then you posted a grainy picture from a "report" in the hopes that you can get away by lying on a public forum. What a way to ruin your reputation!