did you just drop out of high school or something?
or hell, this is middle school level math. estimates aren't wild guesses, they're educated summations of existing data, and there's zero way anyone making an actual estimate come cope up with <500 OR ~5000. you don't need a complete data table to make an estimate, but you did have a) a reasonable idea of the number of games and 2) a reasonable idea of the average number of players in each game, and you still thought 500?
the truth is probably you did none of that, made a wild guess based on confirmation bias, and are defending it because you think estimates are the same as off-the-head guesses.
you're stupid anon. just live with it. or a troll, idk.
okay, i'll indulge you since you want to sound smart.
the fatal flaw in your "logic" is that there was no existing data prior to the very recent survey, just community membership numbers which, as stated already, range from almost 25,000 on lj sws to 5,000 on its dw counterpart and barely 300 members in other drs like nexus. given that wide latitude, estimates were going to have... and stay with me on this one, a wide latitude. game membership is even tricker to quantify given cross-pollination, journals that stay subscribed to games after leaving, etc, etc.
also, i'm not your hated nemesis <500 anon. i was actually hoping for something closer to 2500.
so, yea, you don't actually sound smart or educated here. you just sound like another idiot high off their own farts.
but please, continue to entertain us with more of your psuedo number crunching
if you admit by your own sperging here that the data table wouldn't lead to a 500 or 5000 number, why the fuck are you still defending it? and, for that matter, didn't you just admit that estimates aren't just wild guesses?
what is even the point of this comment, other than to be contrary?
honestly i'm not sure where "<500 OR ~5000" even came from other than mecha sosa's addled head
and yes, the entire point of this comment is to be contrary. you see, i enjoy calling out stupid people who delude themselves into thinking they are smart.
every contrary comment is sweet to me, like biting into a juicy orange.
they came from actual comments in this thread, if you'd bothered to parent up. that's where the people saying "UGH, DON'T MAKE FUN OF MY MATH, IT WAS AN *ESTIMATE*" came from.
your life must be rather sad if posting pot shot "hot takes" at people gives you this satisfaction. touch some grass.
oh, you mean from that one anon who admitted they had just come back to dwrp after a hiatuds and was promptly dogpiled but DWRP-ISN'T-DYING koolaid drinkers?
i'm not them so i can't say with certainty but i'm pretty sure they said that tongue-in-cheek. but trust the autists led by mecha sosa to take it completely literal
(ps my life is actually pretty awesome, it's just idiots that are sadly allowed to live that keeps it from being perfect)
Re: +1
(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 06:54 pm (UTC)(link)or hell, this is middle school level math. estimates aren't wild guesses, they're educated summations of existing data, and there's zero way anyone making an actual estimate come cope up with <500 OR ~5000. you don't need a complete data table to make an estimate, but you did have a) a reasonable idea of the number of games and 2) a reasonable idea of the average number of players in each game, and you still thought 500?
the truth is probably you did none of that, made a wild guess based on confirmation bias, and are defending it because you think estimates are the same as off-the-head guesses.
you're stupid anon. just live with it. or a troll, idk.
Re: +1
(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 07:00 pm (UTC)(link)the fatal flaw in your "logic" is that there was no existing data prior to the very recent survey, just community membership numbers which, as stated already, range from almost 25,000 on lj sws to 5,000 on its dw counterpart and barely 300 members in other drs like nexus. given that wide latitude, estimates were going to have... and stay with me on this one, a wide latitude. game membership is even tricker to quantify given cross-pollination, journals that stay subscribed to games after leaving, etc, etc.
also, i'm not your hated nemesis <500 anon. i was actually hoping for something closer to 2500.
so, yea, you don't actually sound smart or educated here. you just sound like another idiot high off their own farts.
but please, continue to entertain us with more of your psuedo number crunching
Re: +1
(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 07:04 pm (UTC)(link)really?
jfc
Re: +1
(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 07:06 pm (UTC)(link)i'm all eyes for this
Re: +1
(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 07:07 pm (UTC)(link)count, motherfucker.
Re: +1
(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 07:11 pm (UTC)(link)> shitposter says "count"
oh my sides
Re: +1
(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 07:09 pm (UTC)(link)Re: +1
(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 07:10 pm (UTC)(link)Re: +1
(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 07:11 pm (UTC)(link)Re: +1
(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 07:12 pm (UTC)(link)da
(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 07:05 pm (UTC)(link)if you admit by your own sperging here that the data table wouldn't lead to a 500 or 5000 number, why the fuck are you still defending it? and, for that matter, didn't you just admit that estimates aren't just wild guesses?
what is even the point of this comment, other than to be contrary?
Re: da
(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 07:09 pm (UTC)(link)and yes, the entire point of this comment is to be contrary. you see, i enjoy calling out stupid people who delude themselves into thinking they are smart.
every contrary comment is sweet to me, like biting into a juicy orange.
Re: da
(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 07:12 pm (UTC)(link)your life must be rather sad if posting pot shot "hot takes" at people gives you this satisfaction. touch some grass.
Re: da
(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 07:16 pm (UTC)(link)i'm not them so i can't say with certainty but i'm pretty sure they said that tongue-in-cheek. but trust the autists led by mecha sosa to take it completely literal
(ps my life is actually pretty awesome, it's just idiots that are sadly allowed to live that keeps it from being perfect)
Re: da
Re: da
Re: da
(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 07:23 pm (UTC)(link)Re: da
Re: da
(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 08:12 pm (UTC)(link)Re: +1
(Anonymous) 2016-08-16 07:01 pm (UTC)(link)