"From just £4 a month" - Even in its death throes the Guardian continues to obfuscate the truth
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (22)
sorted by:
That number, 48530, is extremely unlikely. "0"s as ending numbers don't happen all that often, but humans love seeing them.
But to be fair to them, I went to their website, and saw 48699 as the number, which is higher than in the screenshot. But 99 is the LEAST likely number from 1-100, numbers-audit-speaking (math is fascinating, how natural courses of things make certain numbers more or less likely to occur in nature).
On the OTHER side of fairness, that screenshot asked for the same amount of money, but in a different denomination. If they "need" money to keep going, why would they be tracking people donating 4USD the same as people donating 15GBP, instead of a running currency total in USD?
This sounds a lot like that crazy election denialism talk.
Benford's law is now double plus untrue.
Deeeeebooooonked!
It's now 49,495 and the wording is changed, and a new $1 option was added to replace the 'custom amount'. Also the hilighted part is an image, not text. weird.
Now they're desperate lmfao
99 is also one of the psychologically appealing numbers. It makes you feel like you're right there if it's a price it makes you think it's not as expensive as just 100.
And the third checker got a final number 5. Three different numbers! Also the three biggest human-incentivised numbers.
I have a feeling their numbers go up in line with the deadline, and are meant to pass the deadline at just before the end of it, going up onto key psychology numbers, and is completely unrelated to the actual number of donors. Could be wrong, but seems on-schedule for a "just barely".