4 ms·
I would be interested to see what people guess the total number is - post your estimate!
by mrtron 16y ago
I would be interested to see what people guess the total number is - post your estimate!
- jessriedel 16y ago500. But it was influenced by his warning not to underestimate.
- bambax 16y agoI guessed between 500 and 700 because there are 4x10 blocks (40) with a range between 0 and 40 tickets per block (time slot). But in fact the top two rows are almost empty, and the bottom two have many tickets left. That makes: Max = 40 slots x 40 tickets div 2 rows = 1600 div 2 = 800 Min = 40 slots x 10 (average number of tickets) = 400 Probable range: somewhere inside 400-800 so lets say 500-700! (that is not a "strong" reasoning, that is just what I thought).
- mrtron 16y agoInteresting - perhaps if you go the opposite way about how many tickets are already taken it will result in you overestimating the results.
- philbarr 16y agoI guessed 400. My brain initially gave me the number 250, but then I realised the numbers in the lower rows would add up to 100's pretty quickly, so I upped it a bit.
- thalur 16y agoI guessed 300.
- Hates_ 16y agoI guessed 600.
- Nick_C 16y agoI guessed about 700, so I was way off, but on the other side. My reasoning was: the morning was pretty booked out, but most of afternoon slots (24 of them) had about 20 - 30 free. 24 * 30 = 720.
- jergosh 16y ago500, after being primed by estimates in the article
- rsaarelm 16y agoTwo rows of ten boxes at the bottom have nontrivial amounts in them, a quick eyeballing gives 30 as a possible average amount -> 600 total.
- relix 16y ago530, really really close :o
- jules 16y ago500, based on eyeballing the number of big numbers (between 15 and 20, I took 20 to adjust for the small numbers) and eyeballing the average value of the big numbers (25, I took a number slightly lower than I estimated because I knew that the 20 was probably too high). Giving the estimate 20*25=500.
- wzdd 16y ago500. Thought process was something like "there are a lot of 30s in the list, at least 3 groups of 3, so a really conservative estimate would be 300. But there are about that many boxes again having numbers in the double digits below 30. So, uh, let's go with 500."
- powrtoch 16y ago500, I remember coming up with an "average nonzero cell" estimate and then multiplying it by my estimate of how many of these there were. All done in under 5 seconds, a side effect of which is that I don't really remember what process the first estimate came from.
- cracki 16y agoi surveyed the numbers, noticing bunches of 30-40 and few smaller numbers. so i got to roughly summing them up into hundreds. in the end, i got to around 500. the bottom row alone gets you around 250 and the one above that another 200-250. the rest is peanuts. i'm sure i took longer than 5 seconds for that, but 5 seconds is time i'd spend gladly on a good estimate, especially while standing in line.
- Dove 16y agoScans screen. 200. No, wait, that can't be right. Spots several two digit numbers which alone would add to two hundred. Looks more like . . . using previous sum as a "what 200 looks like" baseline. . . I'd say 500.