It's percentage of the entire population, if you organized everyone from lowest to highest IQ, what percentage of the entire population would you need to include for them to be in the top. It's a little clearer when a point of interest is near the top. E.G. "person is in the top 1% of people in terms of wealth."
A less kind way to say it is '91% of people have a higher IQ than this person'.
I imagine if my occupation includes carrying a gun, interacting with citizens, and a historically high rate of extrajudicial deaths amongst people I am supposed to be protecting. A publicly accessible camera would be beneficial to easing the minds of those I interact with and providing evidence for any actual instances where I felt my life was threatened.
The democratic convention hasn't happened, Biden was only ever just the presumed candidate. Trump is the oldest U.S. presidential candidate there has ever been.
I imagine that he is equating the spectrum back to the rainbow, where red is the 'top' of the visible arch when a single rainbow is seen from the ground.
Of course the outer ring from a double rainbow flips the order of the colours, but that's probably being needlessly pedantic.
You can also choose not to.
Linnaean taxonomy classifies apes and monkeys as two closely related groups. This is the classification system most people are taught in grade school.
Cladistics is a style of classification that seeks to organize species and groups of species from when they branched off of other groups of species. In this style, everything is defined by novel features, but they are still members of the more ancient clade. Birds for instance, would be a novel clade emerging from Dinosaurs, and thus all birds are also dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds.
Because there are two groups of monkeys with unique characteristics (new world and old world), and apes have unique adaptations not found in either group, we have no way of cladistically defining a monkey in a way that meaningfully does not also include apes.
As a side note, this is where the phrase "there is no such thing as a fish" comes from. 'Fish' in the Linnaean sense are a huge and diverse category. Two random members of the fish class would likely be far, far more distantly related than a random mammal and a random reptile.
"But, when I talk to people in general, most seem to not worry because they “have nothing to hide”, and most are only worried about their passwords, banking apps and not much else."
Sounds like they have passwords and banking apps to hide, You should demand their bank account and credit card details to verify that they have made no illicit actions.
If they point out that they have no reason to trust you with that information, that's when you point out that police, government, or corporate groups are made out of people just like yourself. They might have some codes of conduct, or a vetting process, but it just takes one person malicious or careless enough for you to be severely impacted.
Which of these candidates do you think will be more willing to have their minds changed with protests and petitions?
Nothing is going to be easy or perfect, but we can at least choose the most likely candidate that is slightly more aligned with our desired outcome and then fight for what is needed.