That's facinating!!

Oh wow, you're right. This is an even better solution than I first thought!

This passes tests, because humanYears is specified to be >= 1. So no. There is no need to test for out of spec conditions.

This is awesome, just need to add a check for humanYears === 0, I think.

I like this one. I don't entriely get it but I know what I like.

hello, I think it's just mathmetical , need that value for correct answer and nothing more

very clean <3

Also still lost with this one...

edit: oh, it's the truthy/falsy values of 0 & 1 that allow the ternary operator to work

I don't understand ... where did these 16 and 14 come from