11–13 of 13 posts
a) He says .0014% when he means 0.14%.
b) He interprets "X% of Londoners fit my criteria" as "on a given night, I have X% chance of meeting someone fitting my criteria". Apparently on a given night he meets exactly one randomly-sampled Londoner?
Obviously this is just for fun, but the author screws up his reasoning pretty badly. For example: a) He says .0014% when he means 0.14%. b) He interprets "X% of Londoners fit my criteria" as "on a given night, I have X% chance of meeting someone fitting my criteria". Apparently on a given night he meets exactly one randomly-sampled Londoner?
d) He doesn't give himself any credit for being able to selectively meet people close to his age and education level.
I am going to go out on a limb and say the reason he does not have a girlfriend is the fact he is too busy pondering the Drake equation. It's funny how highly analytical people can quantify the most difficult things, but fail to see the obvious. I am sure there is some sort of equation you could perform to figure out how many girls you have to meet daily to increase odds - but instead of doing that, go out and actual…