It says in the article that the author gets 34k daily users, and 50k unique users/month. It would have been clearer if the author had talked about sessions (which are therefore > 1M/mo) for sure, but you're still making a very big (and invalid) assumption.

EDIT: Please disregard the above. I need an eye test, or maybe just to put my glasses on! Daily users are 3.4k (3400), not 34k. My apologies, I take it all back!

It's 3.4k (3400) daily users. Not 34k (34000). Dont worry, I nearly missed the dot at first, as well :)

I'm such a klutz - sorry. This is what I get for reading HN when I'm still in bed and without putting my glasses on first. This is a terrible habit that I need to break.

Username now in question

Tough to argue against that under the circumstances.

And 2.5 per minute

Or 0 per minute and 25,000 per hour for two days a month. Traffic can be bursty; don't assume that X/month means they're getting exactly X/30 per day..