It doesn't. This is like asking what percentage of international level pop singers live in the US. Definitely not 100%. Even considering baseball players the proportion isn't 100%.

If it doesn't then the grand grand parent's figure doesn't matter either, you can't have it both ways with this kind of argument. You can't use a number and when asked about an accurate representation of the problem, opt out claiming numbers don't matter.

I didn't say numbers don't matter. I just said your numbers don't matter, because they aren't relevant. It's on you to prove that the numbers you seek are relevant.

I would contend that the unknowable numbers the person is asking for are not actually relevant to the argument at all.

> I would contend that the unknowable numbers the person is asking for are not actually relevant to the argument at all.

More like you don't want to know, or it would turn your argument into an absurdity.

Please explain to me how knowing those values would change the argument. At what thresholds would it make a difference one way or the other?

Please explain how the number you cited is relevant at first place, with the same conditions:

> At what thresholds would it make a difference one way or the other?

You can look at a person and tell that they are bald. You can look at a person and tell that they are not bald. But you can't say exactly when they go from not bald to bald.

Since we can't know how many people are employed as developers, we must guess. But we can reasonably guess that if only 4.25% of the world's population lives in the US, it can't possibly have all the best developers, or even the majority of them.

It is a knowable number you're just omitting it to suit your argument.