zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. appare+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-04 23:22:43
There are trillionaires?
replies(1): >>alpini+53
2. alpini+53[view] [source] 2026-02-04 23:42:00
>>appare+(OP)
I guess technically musk rounds to a trillion. 852B acc to Forbes
replies(1): >>appare+Vz
◧◩
3. appare+Vz[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 04:14:27
>>alpini+53
That would be some aggressive rounding.
replies(2): >>alpini+qw1 >>antonv+5Y1
◧◩◪
4. alpini+qw1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 13:07:45
>>appare+Vz
Yes and no. Obviously it’s unusual rounding or I wouldn’t have said “I guess technically,” but rounding is all about domains and relevant precision. To be honest, when someone says “billionaires” I don’t assume that the number 1,000,000 is a meaningful hard cut off. I assume we’re talking about the ones who are three orders of magnitude up from “millionaire” and orders of magnitude work by rounding from .5.
replies(1): >>dragon+L62
◧◩◪
5. antonv+5Y1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 15:46:29
>>appare+Vz
What's $148,000,000,000 between friends
◧◩◪◨
6. dragon+L62[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 16:36:04
>>alpini+qw1
> orders of magnitude work by rounding from .5.

No, orders of magnitude are exponential, not linear, so conventionally “on the order of 1 billion” would be between 100 million × sqrt(10) and 1 billion × sqrt(10), but “billionaire” isn't “net worth on the order of 1 billion” but “net worth of 1 billion or more”, or, when used heirarchically alongside trillionaire ans millionaire “net worth of at least one billion and less than one trillion”.

[go to top]