Hacker News Reader

Checking Mekong (Which I would have thought higher) it's correct by this source -

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/b3463307-en/index.html?i...

Annual - 475 km3 - 475*1000*1000*1000/365/24/3600 = 15062 m3/s

Any others seem odd?

oh the talk page comment is old enough that I assume its mostly been fixed, although the Urubamba-Caura length discrepancy noted by someone else on the talk page is still there. I was commenting more at the fascination of 'Intergalactic Power and Light' maintaining for a while a webpage focused on river lengths. It feels like a callback to an earlier era

Reply on news.ycombinator.com