Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yes I agree it is useful to consider the rest of the world. However that was not the cause for the discrepancy and the numbers are still out by a factor of 100. If you think that 1% of global surplus attention could annually create 10000 wikipedias instead of 100 then you are likely to reach some very different conclusions. Maybe he switched context from 1% to 100% - that would make sense.


You're completely right. To convince myself:

  trillion = 10**12
  wikipedia = 10**8

  surplus = trillion
  applied_surplus = surplus * 0.01
  print applied_surplus / wikipedia
which leaves us with only 100 wikipedias, as your numbers claimed.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: