top | item 40501057 (no title) HunterWare | 1 year ago 40% is a rounding error? I hope not ;) (edit, fine 34%... but I'll say THAT might be a rounding error grin) discuss order hn newest busterarm|1 year ago I said specifically it's not a rounding error. You would, at minimum, round to the nearest hundred million years, which was done. AnimalMuppet|1 year ago No. First, if the best known number is 66 mya, why throw away almost all the precision and call it 100 mya?Second, the number it was being compared to in roenxi's comment was 9 million years, not 4 billion years.So, yes, it is in fact a rounding error.;-) load replies (1) dmd|1 year ago It's not 40%, though; the relevant 100% is not 100 million years, it's "several billion years".
busterarm|1 year ago I said specifically it's not a rounding error. You would, at minimum, round to the nearest hundred million years, which was done. AnimalMuppet|1 year ago No. First, if the best known number is 66 mya, why throw away almost all the precision and call it 100 mya?Second, the number it was being compared to in roenxi's comment was 9 million years, not 4 billion years.So, yes, it is in fact a rounding error.;-) load replies (1)
AnimalMuppet|1 year ago No. First, if the best known number is 66 mya, why throw away almost all the precision and call it 100 mya?Second, the number it was being compared to in roenxi's comment was 9 million years, not 4 billion years.So, yes, it is in fact a rounding error.;-) load replies (1)
dmd|1 year ago It's not 40%, though; the relevant 100% is not 100 million years, it's "several billion years".
busterarm|1 year ago
AnimalMuppet|1 year ago
Second, the number it was being compared to in roenxi's comment was 9 million years, not 4 billion years.
So, yes, it is in fact a rounding error.
;-)
dmd|1 year ago