4 ms·
Yes I agree it is useful to consider the rest of the world. However that was not the cause for the discrepancy and the numbers are still out by a factor of 100.
by dejb 19y ago
Yes I agree it is useful to consider the rest of the world. However that was not the cause for the discrepancy and the numbers are still out by a factor of 100. If you think that 1% of global surplus attention could annually create 10000 wikipedias instead of 100 then you are likely to reach some very different conclusions. Maybe he switched context from 1% to 100% - that would make sense.
- scw 19y agoYou're completely right. To convince myself: trillion = 10**12 wikipedia = 10**8 surplus = trillion applied_surplus = surplus * 0.01 print applied_surplus / wikipedia which leaves us with only 100 wikipedias, as your numbers claimed.