The ratios in the example are on integer numbers of people, not measurements. You seem to get that, so I'm struggling to imagine what "the same kind of data" fr

The ratios in the example are on integer numbers of people, not measurements. You seem to get that, so I'm struggling to imagine what "the same kind of data" from a "sensor with some uncertainty" would even mean. Or what the hypothetical experimentalist who wrote your modified version of the equation would even be trying to compute using the measurements, in that case. Or why any reader would be attempting to "reverse engineer" the experimental details in a case like that. It just flat out doesn't apply to the situations the author is writing about. If I'm not getting your point, feel free to paint me a scenario with a bit more specificity. Anyway, if you're worried about not tracking uncertainty in calculations, well, I can quote from the article: > If your point is that there’s lots of uncertainty, then add a confidence interval or write “±” whatever. That solves the problem in an equally valid way, no? The author is clearly not some ignoramus who doesn't understand significant digits and needs to take a Physics 101 class.