You almost earned a downvote from me for the unnecessarily negative tone. You have a great post and the idea that there's a more elegant solution is awesome, bu

You almost earned a downvote from me for the unnecessarily negative tone. You have a great post and the idea that there's a more elegant solution is awesome, but I'm puzzled why you chose to phrase your response that way. To your point though, is this your solution? Is the accuracy helped by using more precise numbers or is it more of a structural limitation?