Problem is an understatement.

I can't find the video though, it is POE worthy if it's ever found.

Its also a problem for the Australian Aboriganies.

Most of these people are just attention whores who can bullshit well enough to seem believable.

Her claim of spending 0 a month on gas is ridiculous if you consider how many gallons of gas 0 buys.

Her brain would be swiss cheese if she did that for 30 years.

Yeah, I don't see how she would plausibly go through that much gasoline.

She could just impermeable glass bottles...I imagine they would last for months, at least.

0 sounds pretty crazy. I don't drive a ton, but I only spend about 0 a month on gas.

I think I get how the TV people did this in a way that can be audited. They probably sampled over something like 10 minutes and observed, say, two sniffs from that amount of gasoline.

Then they deliberately used linear interpolation to take them to wonderful magical lands.

I'm not a big fancy scientist your honor, I am just a simple humble caveman using the statistical techniques I was taught as a caveboy in cavestats...maybe if all of us went and looked back to that era in history we would *all* be better off.

She spends almost 0 on the pot that makes her crazy, and whatever on the odd litre of gas.

i never log in to poetv but i'm doing it today just to let you know you lost me at "audited" and never came close to making sense after that. five stars

Didn't think it was that convoluted really....

By "audited" I am suggesting that the producers of the show cannot flat out lie, without a "fictional events" disclaimer, so they need to demonstrate truthfulness if someone (e.g. someone on the show) decides to sue them. They need to show how they came to their conclusions if someone were to open their book of observations and be "audited" (typically what happens when there is an apparent discrepancy in reporting).

I bet you get the number "120 times a day" by observing that she sniffed 10 times in one hour during an interview, and then just extended to 12 waking hours. Not implausible, but I wouldn't want to estimate her yearly intake from what had to have been a relatively short interview process (as opposed to study). I would guess that it is a lot less than that. You can imagine what other games you can play like this to come up with "fun fact" numbers during a show (this is what I mean by using linear interpolation to take you to "magical places").

The last paragraph is a reference to Phil Hartman's caveman lawyer character on SNL, whom I liken the producers to. I feel that they are likely using simplistic methods for observation and estimation, and can justify them by pointing to their existence in math text books etc. They are using these methods not out of ignorance, but a willful intent to mislead towards their own benefit; much like Phil Hartman's character.

Let me know if you need any more help.