Forum
Wtf lol
|
unlucky9999 wrote
at 8:58 PM, Friday July 20, 2007 EDT
1 (15.02) leekstep I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work.I support Ryan's work. 0 2183 (63rd) 248 20% 20% 15% 10% 10% 12% 10%
cummulative 97%. WTF? lol some1 wasnt a very good boy.... |
Replies 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
Cody wrote
at 12:22 AM, Saturday July 21, 2007 EDT unlucky, many names add up to 97%, because the percentages are rounded, some accuracy is lost.
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 10:19 AM, Saturday July 21, 2007 EDT I think it is worse than percentages being rounded. I think that percentages are truncated. Meaning that the decimals are lopped off, not rounded up or down. With rounding, percentages totaling over 100 would be as likely as percentages totaling less than 100, but I don't think totals over 100 happen.
|
|
|
unlucky9999 wrote
at 11:33 AM, Saturday July 21, 2007 EDT Maybe cody, but still LOL :)
|
