Quote:
Originally Posted by thingywhat
Yeah, even though I posted it two years ago, I think it is very likely largely inaccurate.
I never accounted for biases, used sources that don't really translate to each other, and just got excited at the numbers that I came up with even in light of the problems with my methodology.
The chances of those numbers being correct are really low, and I would rather just forget about them.
|
True, didn't mean to necro a two year old thing, just bugged me for a bit. I mean, while very likely to be inaccurate, it is entertaining to see some numbers, even if it is the idea it's lower making the amount much higher and in hindsight how good that is.