Eight, seems to me. Agreed on the Excel behaviour.
Also, the blog post states: "ticks on the x-axis are separated by 20, 50, 43, 37, 20, 20, and 22 years."
The first two ticks are 1700 and 1820, so 120 years. (Noticed because stretching the left side is the biggest chart change shown.)
Eight, seems to me. Agreed on the Excel behaviour.
Also, the blog post states: "ticks on the x-axis are separated by 20, 50, 43, 37, 20, 20, and 22 years."
The first two ticks are 1700 and 1820, so 120 years. (Noticed because stretching the left side is the biggest chart change shown.)