3 ms·
Off by a factor of 100 here: > Making the list is a herculean task. Consider the number of books, more than 3m, published every year. And then consider that th
by dynm 3y ago
Off by a factor of 100 here:
> Making the list is a herculean task. Consider the number of books, more than 3m, published every year. And then consider that the number of slots on the NYT’s coveted lists is ~6240. That gives authors a coolly aspirational 0.00208% chance to snag one.
- test77777 3y ago[flagged]
- heyjamesknight 3y agoWhat? 6240/3,000,000 = 0.00248, which is .248%. No convention ever says you can put the % next to the raw ratio.
- Aloisius 3y agoI think you mean 0.208%. The infographic also has a different number from the article (6040 vs. 6240) which is confusing.
- test77777 3y ago[flagged]
- satvikpendem 3y agoWhat kind of logic is this? Just because you think it's correct does not make it actually correct. I can think 1+1=3 but that is not so. Now that I look at your profile, it's more obvious that you are simply trolling, given your other comments. Even your bio alludes to this irony.
- netsharc 3y agoDo/did you work for Verizon? http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/2006/12/verizon-doesnt-know-dollars-from-cents.html http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/2006/12/verizon-doesnt-know-...
- test77777 3y agoMods book this guy he’s being mean to me.
- mtlynch 3y agoFor anyone else who's as bad as me at mental arithmetic: 3,000,000 ÷ 6240 = 0.00208 = 0.208%
- Agingcoder 3y agoNo it’s 6240 / 3 000 000
- mtlynch 3y agoAh, right.
- tempaway11751 3y agoThe murky math of someone trying to write about the New York Times bestsellers list and getting it wrong by a factor of 100