bdecker202


quality posts: 19 Private Messages bdecker202

Apparently they taught it differently in Michigan. Both "winners" were from the mitten state.

poostorm


quality posts: 0 Private Messages poostorm

I fail to see the point of this whole thing if the #s are not going to be correct.

bdecker202


quality posts: 19 Private Messages bdecker202
skemmis wrote:Sorry everybody - we had an issue with the URLs going live a couple minutes after the question was posted because we're dumb.



It's okay!!

Can you explain why 206 instead of 209?

elangomatt


quality posts: 11 Private Messages elangomatt

I can only assume that they didn't think any presidents had a birthday yet in the year they died. Unfortunately, 3 of the presidents had already had their birthday while Garfield had not. 209 minus 3 years for each president who had their birthday the year they died equals 206.

bdecker202


quality posts: 19 Private Messages bdecker202
elangomatt wrote:I can only assume that they didn't think any presidents had a birthday yet in the year they died. Unfortunately, 3 of the presidents had already had their birthday while Garfield had not. 209 minus 3 years for each president who had their birthday the year they died equals 206.



This. This is probably what happened. They took death year - birth year. Just wow.

jharm73


quality posts: 0 Private Messages jharm73
poostorm wrote:I fail to see the point of this whole thing if the #s are not going to be correct.



I fail to see the POINT at all, Give us the old Woot! back, stop adding all these other site, woot plus, crazy ways to find a Box of Chips...give us 5$ all day shipping too!

jharm73


quality posts: 0 Private Messages jharm73
bdecker202 wrote:This. This is probably what happened. They took death year - birth year. Just wow.



all they needed to do is lookup how old they were when they died, right on wikipedia, no subtraction needed

bdecker202


quality posts: 19 Private Messages bdecker202
jharm73 wrote:all they needed to do is lookup how old they were when they died, right on wikipedia, no subtraction needed



Agreed. I argue that it's actually more difficult to come up with their answer by trying to do subtraction.

punkdeviant


quality posts: 0 Private Messages punkdeviant

56 (1809–1865)
Abraham Lincoln, Age at death

49 (1831–1881)
James A. Garfield, Age at death

46 (1917–1963)
John F. Kennedy, Age at death

58 (1843–1901)
William McKinley, Age at death

(56+49++58+46)*(17)= 209 * 17 = 3553

Order of operation wrong

lwjohnson


quality posts: 1 Private Messages lwjohnson
Bremma wrote:Apparently Crapschimdt is really bad at math and/or facts.



This is ridiculous. It was not that hard to look up. The answer is definitely 3553. Boo Woot!

skylarsutton


quality posts: 1 Private Messages skylarsutton
poostorm wrote:I fail to see the point of this whole thing if the #s are not going to be correct.



+1

I'm done for the day - you guys can stress out over wrong answers without me.

link12245


quality posts: 1 Private Messages link12245
skemmis wrote:Sorry everybody - we had an issue with the URLs going live a couple minutes after the question was posted because we're dumb.



Awesome, so I did get it right. This is the fifth time I've been ousted from a deal because of cheating or woot issues, so I give up. Enjoy the Board of Circuits#39;s people, I've been trying for years, but I don't think I'll ever get one.

ctapley99


quality posts: 0 Private Messages ctapley99

Seriously, I can't be the only one who tried every iteration of 16,17 and all numbers in between * 209 trying to get the correct answer can I?

How can Woot not get basic math correct? This is ludicrous.

UnConsumed


quality posts: 0 Private Messages UnConsumed
skemmis wrote:Sorry everybody - we had an issue with the URLs going live a couple minutes after the question was posted because we're dumb.


Guess that is why my first answer received an error and left me trying variations (wrong answers) after the url was live. I would appreciate if Woot would throw me a Bunch of Credit...

goudaman40


quality posts: 0 Private Messages goudaman40

Hey woot - as you may already know - your math was wrong!

scarredwithstars


quality posts: 3 Private Messages scarredwithstars
ctapley99 wrote:Seriously, I can't be the only one who tried every iteration of 16,17 and all numbers in between * 209 trying to get the correct answer can I?

How can Woot not get basic math correct? This is ludicrous.



Calm down, put down the pitch forks.

That was the right answer, but if you read the post from the staff, there was an issue with the url going live on time. So it WAS the right url (in fact, still is) you just had to wait a bit before it worked.

I'd rather it work this way, than have them live before hand and let cheaters get it. Even if it meant it sold out as I placed the order

itoaseik


quality posts: 2 Private Messages itoaseik
ctapley99 wrote:Seriously, I can't be the only one who tried every iteration of 16,17 and all numbers in between * 209 trying to get the correct answer can I?

How can Woot not get basic math correct? This is ludicrous.



How many numbers are there between 16 and 17, exactly?