Me too. 5 out of 10, and the ones I missed were close, except for that one. Couldn’t figure out how I was that far wrong. So I took another look at the answers.
23,000 cubic kilometers 6.8 x 10^20 cubic meters
The first seems reasonable. 230km by 100km by 1km deep. The second seems …
wrong and just weird. 2.3 x 10^4 cubic km would be 2.3 x 10^13 cubic meters.
I only had 5 correct even though I knew about the involved bias from several sources and had done the (more extensive) test on http://www.projectionpoint.com/test1.php some time ago.
My main problem was the sheer scale of some problems, like the volume of the Great Lakes, which screwed up all the calculations in my head. Also, I did actually kinda-know a few of these items, but misremembered them and overconfidently didn’t adjust my margins for safety.
Still, hitting a target with over 10 orders of magnitude in range isn’t exactly accuracy.
Either I am the only irrational person here, or there is a strong publication bias. 4 out of 10. Once I was off nearly 3 orders of magnitude.
For the great lakes I was off by so many order of magnitudes I’m too embarassed to go count them. Probably about ten.
“Ten thousand trillion litres should cover it!”
“Nope”
Oops.
Me too. 5 out of 10, and the ones I missed were close, except for that one. Couldn’t figure out how I was that far wrong. So I took another look at the answers.
The first seems reasonable. 230km by 100km by 1km deep. The second seems … wrong and just weird. 2.3 x 10^4 cubic km would be 2.3 x 10^13 cubic meters.
I only had 5 correct even though I knew about the involved bias from several sources and had done the (more extensive) test on http://www.projectionpoint.com/test1.php some time ago.
My main problem was the sheer scale of some problems, like the volume of the Great Lakes, which screwed up all the calculations in my head. Also, I did actually kinda-know a few of these items, but misremembered them and overconfidently didn’t adjust my margins for safety.
Still, hitting a target with over 10 orders of magnitude in range isn’t exactly accuracy.
nah, I only got 4, too :(