zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. alpini+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-04 23:42:00
I guess technically musk rounds to a trillion. 852B acc to Forbes
replies(1): >>appare+Qw
2. appare+Qw[view] [source] 2026-02-05 04:14:27
>>alpini+(OP)
That would be some aggressive rounding.
replies(2): >>alpini+lt1 >>antonv+0V1
◧◩
3. alpini+lt1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 13:07:45
>>appare+Qw
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+G32
◧◩
4. antonv+0V1[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 15:46:29
>>appare+Qw
What's $148,000,000,000 between friends
◧◩◪
5. dragon+G32[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 16:36:04
>>alpini+lt1
> 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]