> The comparison with time is totally bogus because the amount of time does not change as you add more cities/factories. But it does (when we are summing over

> The comparison with time is totally bogus because the amount of time does not change as you add more cities/factories. But it does (when we are summing over the time axis)! We always had time built into the unit (deaths/100k people/year), so of course it makes sense to look at it in the context of time by applying specific values for them. > If someone asked you the combined output of two factories per worker, would you tell them the sum?! With that specific vague query, I'd probably ask a follow up question, as I assume that the person asking the question doesn't exactly know how to interpret the number, which is often the case if someone asks for "combined" and "per" in the same sentence. I've helped people build enough BI dashboards to spot when people try to avoid thinking about the data implications behind the operations they think they want to do, and "combine" is one of the top keywords for that. > If the first factory produces 5 items with 1 worker and the second factory produces 5 items with 1 worker, then combined they're producing 5 items per worker, not 10 items per worker! Factory 1 is producing 5 items/worker/hour, just as factory 2 is, so "combined" they are producing 10 items/hour, which is just as valid as your statement. As long as you are mindful with the units and the context, either way is fine.