dan_philly said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. The counter-case has not been addressed. Somebody upthread described the situation that does not fit, and the thread moved on rather than engaging with it, which is the failure mode this board is supposed to avoid.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

dan_philly said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.

I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.

dan_philly said:

For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.

Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion.

From the other side of the consultation, briefly. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

hans_munich said:

Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the…

Mine went the same way, slower.