4 ms·
This sounds extreme, but it's not as extreme as everyone seems to think. 200M is closer to 37M (+163M) than 370M (-170M). OP is saying a 10% decrease is more
by onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
This sounds extreme, but it's not as extreme as everyone seems to think.
200M is closer to 37M (+163M) than 370M (-170M).
OP is saying a 10% decrease is more likely than the population staying even.
I disagree - but not as wildly as I would if OP was saying that the population is likely to actually be close to 37M.
200M is quite far from 37M... It's just that 370M is even farther...
- oefnak 4y agoI find it more logical think of orders of magnitude, so to compare numbers by dividing them; with 100 sitting between 10 and 1000. Then 200 is a lot closer to 370 than to 37.