No single group that is currently a "minority" would overtake the white population, therefore every other population in the US would still be considered a Minority until there is an equal or more number of a single minority than there are white Americans.

Mathematically, if no population is a majority, then the country is 100 percent minority.

You might be hang up on the additional narrative attached to the word “minority”. Consider using “underpriviledged ethnic group", as a. not even today all ethnic groups are equal and b. it is entirely possible some other ethnic group to raise to demographic majority status, and still exhibit the socioeconomic characteristics of a poor population.

Or maybe words are imprecise and fluid and the majority of people understand the intended message even if it's "technically incorrect".

>You might be hang up on the additional narrative attached to the word “minority”.

You can't separate words from their "additional narratives" and expect all people to understand what you're attempting to convey. The context and connotation around words is absolutely necessary for communication, and to eschew it leads to poorer communication.

All of these semantic games miss the point of the term "minority". It's not meant to mean "numerical minority"; it's meant as a euphemism for "non-white person". When you read it that way, all of these terms make sense.

It’s not ridiculous. It means that by 2044, estimates are that over 50% of the population will be part of a minority group, and the largest single group (whites) will no longer be a majority of the population. The minority groups will individually still be smaller than the largest group.

This is a very US-centric view of things. Worldwide, whites are the smallest minority, and they are the only group to be shrinking. The largest group is of course Asian.

Yes, it is a very US-centric view, because we're talking about the US.

And I agree with all of those statements, but phrased as it is now, it's blatantly wrong.

I read the quoted statement as I wrote it. So I strongly disagree that it is wrong. And: please be more civil. See the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Incorrect, the actual definition is "Majority minority" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_minority and yes those of us that are currently Minorities, would still be considered minorities in such a case.

According to the definition, the term applies when local majority is country's minority.

If you're no longer country's minority, you cannot be majority-minority.

This reminds me of a man in the UK, or African ancestry, but who had never been to Africa (or to the US). Americans repeatedly insisted on calling him an "African American".

When you're main concern is "What is a minority" rather than "minorities are dying" that is very indicative of the problem still existing

I agree with your mission statement.

It's important to match the demographics of the population with the demographics of trial users. It's important to prevent as many deaths as we can.

It's important to account for differences between groups when you're developing healthcare.

But please, don't mangle mathematical terms.

>When you're main concern is "What is a minority" rather than "minorities are dying" that is very indicative of the problem still existing

You have just demonstrated what is called "attribution of intention" (as in you attributed an intention to the other person), which is a good indicator of a conversation going south.

(More general bias is "attribution bias")

HN guideline:

>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

I would of said it this way, "No racial group is predicted to be over 50% of the overall population in 2044"