3 ms·

I'm aware that it already passed its closest approach, but what does >3% even mean? 100% is >3%, but 3.000001% is >3% too. Was an impact certain at some point a

I'm aware that it already passed its closest approach, but what does >3% even mean? 100% is >3%, but 3.000001% is >3% too. Was an impact certain at some point and the probability degraded to a bit above 3% over the course of the asteroid's trajectory? If so, I think I'd like to have a heads up when the probability is still closer to 100%, before it drops?

abathur 3y ago
The linked page indicates: Impact probability 0.034 Edit: Not familiar with the site, but I get the sense that this probability reflects the latest run. The probability hopefully gets more accurate as observations rise? I couldn't readily figure out how to see the probability at each of the 8 observations for this one (perhaps this is the first run it's included in--all 8 observations predate this run?), but the page for actual impactors (https://newton.spacedys.com/neodys2/NEOScan/index_past_imp.html https://newton.spacedys.com/neodys2/NEOScan/index_past_imp.h...) at least implies that accuracy may improves with each (and then maybe flip to 0/100?)
soneca 3y ago
I think it specifies that it’s a 3.4% probability in the page. So it was just an odd choice of title by the poster.
codetrotter 3y ago
From the page: Impact probability 0.034 I guess OP decided to abbreviate to >3% instead of writing 3.4% Personally I would’ve written ~3%
sp332 3y ago
It was 3.4% https://newton.spacedys.com/neodys2/NEOScan/risk_page/ZTm0038/index_summary_ZTm0038.html https://newton.spacedys.com/neodys2/NEOScan/risk_page/ZTm003... If you're not logged in to Twitter, I don't think you can scroll from the linked tweet up to see the one this page was linked from, so I put it here.
- arcticpeanuts 3y ago
  I think the link works just fine and I can see it's at 3.4% right now, but was mostly wondering why it's written as >3% in the title. Most likely it's meant as ~3% like other people suggested and I shouldn't be reading to much in it :) Thank you for taking the effort to write your comment.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
arketyp 3y ago
Think of it as the most sensational number you can write without lying. So it's between 3% and 4%.

abathur 3y ago

The linked page indicates: Impact probability 0.034 Edit: Not familiar with the site, but I get the sense that this probability reflects the latest run. The probability hopefully gets more accurate as observations rise? I couldn't readily figure out how to see the probability at each of the 8 observations for this one (perhaps this is the first run it's included in--all 8 observations predate this run?), but the page for actual impactors (https://newton.spacedys.com/neodys2/NEOScan/index_past_imp.html https://newton.spacedys.com/neodys2/NEOScan/index_past_imp.h...) at least implies that accuracy may improves with each (and then maybe flip to 0/100?)

soneca 3y ago

I think it specifies that it’s a 3.4% probability in the page. So it was just an odd choice of title by the poster.

codetrotter 3y ago

From the page: Impact probability 0.034 I guess OP decided to abbreviate to >3% instead of writing 3.4% Personally I would’ve written ~3%

sp332 3y ago

It was 3.4% https://newton.spacedys.com/neodys2/NEOScan/risk_page/ZTm0038/index_summary_ZTm0038.html https://newton.spacedys.com/neodys2/NEOScan/risk_page/ZTm003... If you're not logged in to Twitter, I don't think you can scroll from the linked tweet up to see the one this page was linked from, so I put it here.

arcticpeanuts 3y ago
I think the link works just fine and I can see it's at 3.4% right now, but was mostly wondering why it's written as >3% in the title. Most likely it's meant as ~3% like other people suggested and I shouldn't be reading to much in it :) Thank you for taking the effort to write your comment.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

arketyp 3y ago

Think of it as the most sensational number you can write without lying. So it's between 3% and 4%.