The hottest water cooler talk in the country centers around 2 digits and a decimal point. It is quite a blow, if you get the pun, to a lot of people but the thought behind it is not quite as mutual.
Speaking of bad puns. Here is a little snippet from our national paper.
Train capacity into the Central Business District during the busiest hour in the morning is expected rise to 70 per cent in five years' time, said Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew on Tuesday.
And with ridership unlikely to increase by the same magnitude, Mr Lui said it would likely lead to a less crowded ride.
On the surface it seems reassuring, but here is the point related to the post title.
The statement would seem to say, yes capacity will increase, but the load will unlikely rise by the SAME magnitude. Now, it is true that parallel increases would be unlikely, but question is will the change be simply a difference of 5 per cent? The load may also increase to 80 percent and the statement would fundamentally be still correct.
Therefore the conclusion that rides would be less crowded is likely to be as unlikely as the tandem increases in population and capacity.
P.S.
I just re-read the clip and realized I missed a small detail. Emphasis mine
Train capacity into the Central Business District during the busiest hour in the morning is expected rise to 70 per cent
Firstly I cannot quite understand it after reading a few times. Is there a grammatical error or typo?
Secondly, if read as "expected (to) rise to 70 percent", that would be a horrible projection or reflection of reality. Pity the 30 percent who will never get to board any train during that period.
