That’s precisely the point. The back and forth about Alito’s statistic misses the WAPO’s argument. Alito has inserted statistically useless (but accurate) information MADE TO LOOK as though it’s important because it forms the basis of Alito’s arguments IN SUPPORT of the Packingham outcome. Otherwise, there is little value or support coming from the statistic. So, except for the sake of the tired canard about recidivism, what’s it doing in there? Alito might as well be talking about brand loyalty or something.