Hi John, thank you for reading, and I'm glad you enjoyed it!
I used two significant digits because the IRIS 2025 report presents its core numbers with one or two digits of precision, and I wanted to match that level of clarity. I considered rounding, which would have made sense in some cases, but I aimed for a middle ground: enough precision to distinguish between threat types (e.g., 4.6% vs 3.5%) without implying too much accuracy. In hindsight, I should have noted that some values were estimates and not hyper-precise.
Great article Tony! I noticed many of your frequency estimates have two significant digits, and was curious, why did you choose to do that?
Hi John, thank you for reading, and I'm glad you enjoyed it!
I used two significant digits because the IRIS 2025 report presents its core numbers with one or two digits of precision, and I wanted to match that level of clarity. I considered rounding, which would have made sense in some cases, but I aimed for a middle ground: enough precision to distinguish between threat types (e.g., 4.6% vs 3.5%) without implying too much accuracy. In hindsight, I should have noted that some values were estimates and not hyper-precise.