Poorly written article. No idea what exactly it's trying to say or what the criteria for not "remaining". It looks like it means that only 71 of the 500 in 1955

Poorly written article. No idea what exactly it's trying to say or what the criteria for not "remaining". It looks like it means that only 71 of the 500 in 1955 are still on the Fortune 500. Some dubious data doesn't even support the claims they are supposed to support. Apparently failing during a recession is now "digital darwinism" as opposed to "how business has worked since agriculture began". It was posted here with a misleading title of "71 of 1955 Fortune 500 remain". I would have skipped this article if it was posted with the curent (correct, from article) title, and would have been better off for it.