figs

However, in this case, Google means to say 0.0 × 10^15, indicating two sig figs of accuracy.

Good places couldn't give two figs if you miss the team softball meeting or have/don't have coffee.

Hey, the six figs is great, and you're on track to retire earlier than most, but was that it?

Ruby & Perl are currently at 21% & 18% respectively on Github, so it bears no resemblance to your figs.

You can see this in the difference in Ruby being 35.3% in your figs and it being 21% on Github.

We accept this as true because Google only claims it is true to two sig figs.

This is to some extent meta-humor as the whole point of the story is the programmers involved needed an engineer helping them who understands sig figs and the effect of built up error tolerances.

Hey, so what is the difference between my setup and figs?

I would even argue that it's actually providing a false sense of precision because the sig figs are oftentimes not correctly represented.

The longer you gather and average data the more sig figs you get to accumulate with a sqrt of the number of samples (way too long story).

I don't give two figs what's said behind my back though.

(Plus sides: bacon, sausages, eggs, figs, dates, walnuts.) I gradually fell into this diet by carefully noting which foods made me feel bad ~15-30 mins after.

- results before 1996 are suspect because the Scopus data is incomplete; this is assumed to not matter because "no discontinuity appears in Figs.

Google's mistake is probably that the internal notation used does not allow it to distinguish between "0" and "0.0 x 10^15", and so it does not report that the result is only accurate to two sig figs as it should.

So, if Google somehow reports the "zero" result in scientific notation with two sig figs, then it will be consistent with the rest of their calculator and clear that it may not be an accurate result.

My engineering "sig figs" spidey sense is tingling that the "ranking" is meaningless.