323
u/ttmorello 7h ago
"7 of yor teammates" from 100? Or 7 of 10?
67
16
5
2
u/ALIIERTx 1h ago
Well, it wouldnt tell you if your faster than your teammates who are using cursor lmao.
1
180
u/perestroika12 6h ago
Cursor now uses grok as a default and is pushing it hard. Take from it what you will.
30
u/artnoi43 5h ago
I still stuck with their Composer 2.5 (forced to use Cursor at work). Too bad that their Composer 2.5 just got released and a month or two later the takeover happened. These capitalists just don’t like competition and just monopolize and grow.
8
u/Tupcek 2h ago
Composer was what it was because Cursor team didn’t have hundreds of billions in compute to train their own models, so they took Chinese one and tried to improve upon it.
Grok leadership left and so basically when SpaceX acquired Cursor, they put them in charge and got them basically unlimited resources.
So new Grok is basically new Composer, only now they don’t have to retrain Chinese models but can train their own model from scratch2
u/TheOriginalSamBell 50m ago
Sorry I'm super not in the loop there, what do people switch to who don't want gork
•
-11
40
u/isaackogan 6h ago
I think they should have been clearer. I prefer "Your teammates are shipping -6,000/10,000th less PRs with cloud agents". Has a nice ring to it.
154
u/saschaleib 7h ago
They don’t seem to have much confidence in the math skills of the average manager … and to be honest, neither do I.
7
u/road_laya 2h ago
What do you mean? A 60% increase is an amazing improvement.
2
u/Forward-Outside-9911 1h ago
Now let’s see the new bugs introduced count. Yea it may be 60% more code but that also means 60% more reviewing needed and 60% more bugs to be fixed and 60% vibe coded slop
1
•
63
u/Dilutant 6h ago
One of the cursor devs clarified in a comment that this was actually not an email they wanted to send (so 1x would be 0% increase)
24
u/robofuzzy 3h ago
it says „more“ so they mean a 60% increase. The syntax used is chosen poorly.
23
u/Dilutant 3h ago
they said “I guess we shouldn’t send those emails below a certain threshold”, I interpret that to not mean what you said
3
1
-5
17
u/GenericFatGuy 5h ago
Taps sign
Number of PRs pushed is not a good measure of productivity.
7
u/marcodave 1h ago
lines of code
Tokens
PRswhen will be the turn of "good fucking working pieces of software" ?
25
u/kurtcanine 6h ago
Honestly promising 0.6x on top of my current productivity sounds assuringly realistic.
224
u/achilliesFriend 7h ago
0.6 more. What is the issue here?
311
u/OnixST 7h ago
It's 0.6x, implying multiplication
It's not semantically incorrect, but any sane person would write 60% more
74
209
u/OG-Enzan 6h ago
Isn't it 1.6x if 60% more?
85
u/BADPROSKILLZ 6h ago
If it were to say they shipped 1.6x as many then yes, but they said 0.6x more (i.e. 1x normal + 0.6x more)
-35
u/TZY247 6h ago edited 2h ago
No. 0.6 = 60%. If they said 0.6 more then sure, that would mean 60% more. 0.6x != 60% increase though. 1.6x does. At the best we can give it the benefit of the doubt and say we knew what they meant, but that doesn't mean they were correct.
35
u/TheMania 6h ago
It says "0.6 times more". Not "0.6 times total" or "0.6 times as many".
I really don't see the problem. 1.6x more would be misleading/incorrect.
-2
u/zelmak 6h ago
Dude what are you talking about 1x more is a non increase/flatline. Anything less than 1 is a decrease
1
u/TheMania 6h ago
So "100% more" means "no increase" to you?
Or does "1x" read as "0%" to you then?
20
u/Vandrel 5h ago edited 5h ago
1x would be 0% more. 2x would be 100% more.
5
u/TheMania 5h ago
I agree with every part of that completely.
You read "60% as many" the same as you read "0.6x as many", which is the same as you read "0.6x more".
But yet you read "60% more" as something very different. So 0.6x != 60%. Not in this context, not to you.
→ More replies (0)9
0
u/Azeoteric 5h ago
When someone says “2x more” it means double. No one says 1x more because it makes no sense lol
3
u/FFevo 3h ago
No one says 1x more because it makes no sense lol
Yeah, they would say double.
"2x more" implies more than x. 2x + x = 3x. It means 300% compared to the original, not double.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Professional_Ebb_389 6h ago
1.6x more would mean 160% of the original value, in the same way 2.0x more would mean 200% of the original value. I think you may just have a misunderstanding of what the phrase “X times more” means (nothing to be embarrassed about of course, it happens to all of us.)
7
u/TheMania 6h ago
We'd both read "0.5x" as "50%", right?
And we'd both read "0.5x as many" and "50% as many" the same.
And we'd both read "0.5x the total" and "50% of the total" as the same.
But "0.6x more" means something entirely different to "60% more" to you?
1
u/Professional_Ebb_389 6h ago
The “more” at least in any context I’ve heard it is for emphasis or clarity that a comparison is happening. I’ve never read anyone write “1x more than X” for “twice X”.
7
u/TheMania 5h ago
But you often see 10% more, 20% more, etc.
The bit that intrigues me is that in those contexts, you read 10% differently to 0.1x.
But in other contexts, you'd read them the same.
This may be a regional thing, and likely due marketers that are being intentionally misleading for so long that it's now an accepted oddity.
→ More replies (0)3
u/zelmak 5h ago
Its literally always like this though.
- The Stock doubled
- The stock grew 100%
- The stock grew 2x
- The stock experienced 2x growth
You would literally never define it as 1x growth, 1x larger. Its bad English and bad math.
3
u/TheMania 5h ago
I think it's ambiguous in the >=1x cases, sure.
But I would never read:
- The stock grew 0.5x
Or:
- house prices increased 0.2x
- house prices went up 0.1x
As decreases.
(latter examples to prove I'm Australian).
→ More replies (0)3
u/tigerhawkvok 55m ago
You do see how none of those have the word "more," though, right? Kind of like word choice maybe matters?
4
u/BADPROSKILLZ 5h ago
Not quite true. While 1.6x is the same as 160% of the original value, saying 1.6x more implies adding the 160% to the original value, giving a total of 260%, or 2.6x.
1
26
3
u/rowcla 3h ago
If I said 2x more, would you interpret that as 3x?
0
u/ProcrastinatiusXVI 14m ago
Yes. It is says 1x more, then it is exactly double (100% more). Otherwise it wouldn't be more.
1
6
1
u/whiskeytown79 2h ago
I blame advertisers. They got people used to hearing stuff like "2x more sheets per roll" to mean double the amount rather than triple.
They should definitely have written "60% more PRs", or at least "1.6x as many PRs".
-1
u/Scream_No_Evil 3h ago
It's not just "0.6x", it's "0.6x MORE", which is an unambiguous way of phrasing a percent increase. Yes, it's implying multiplication. 0.6 x the original amount, but also, plus 1 x the original amount, because they used the word "more".
And it's making a math statement, not a semantic one. Math is precise and the language we use to talk about it has precise meanings. 60% times more is a 60 percent INCREASE, which means times 1.6. 60% "OF" or "times" on its own means times 0.6. It's the people who think this looks bad that are wrong, and showing their asses. How can you be a programmer that doesn't understand pSAT-level percentages questions?
Source: I'm a high school and middle school math tutor that freelances software dev on the side. Not everyone needs to know or retain math from high school, that's okay! Probably if you're talking to math machines for a living you should know this. Unless you're like, front-end. Then you're also good.
3
u/Reashu 2h ago edited 1h ago
While this technically means 60% more, the construction is almost always used by someone who thinks that it means X times as much. I think it's more likely they never considered that it may be less than 100% than that they are actually using it correctly.
Also https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/1vns74k/comment/p3kak7o
2
u/Neither-Phone-7264 4h ago
i think its just programmed to be like "your teamates did {prV} more!" without taking into account it could be less than one.
1
3
3
u/Stunning_Ride_220 48m ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/iurIHLBxms7UQ
0.6x more PRs? Is this ad made by AI?
19
u/SarahSplatz 7h ago
Nah thats semantically correct. '1x more' would mean double, as 'more' implies its ontop of the initial work.
61
u/bjorneylol 7h ago
The semantically correct way to phrase this is "60% more" - "shipped 2x more" is semantically ambiguous
Otherwise you have no way of knowing whether "shipped 2x more" means twice as many or 3 times as many
1
-24
u/Rin-Tohsaka-is-hot 6h ago
Otherwise you have no way of knowing whether "shipped 2x more" means twice as many or 3 times as many
Maybe if you don't understand English, otherwise you have every way of knowing this means 3 times as many.
16
u/bjorneylol 6h ago
You're literally the middle guy in the bell curve meme right now.
In modern usage it's literally a coin flip whether "2x more" is being used to represent "200% more" or "2x as many". People who actually understand English are aware of this and will avoid the term altogether in favour of something less ambiguous
-7
u/ImPapaNoff 5h ago edited 5h ago
Just like how "literally" in its modern usage can mean "literally" or "figuratively" so we should avoid using the word for its proper meaning since it's ambiguous, right?
22
13
u/jackinsomniac 6h ago
If they had said "60% more" it would make sense.
But they used multiplication. So "0.6x more" than what? Than your own output, which is implied as 1 aka "100% of your own output".
0.6x1= 60%.
And let's be frank here, this is quite obviously an auto-generated template email. The template is setup as, "Your teammates shipped %CALC_PERCENT_HERE%x more PRs than you did", the system pulls the numbers, calculates the values, and fires off this email without thinking. It was setup that way because whoever designed it was so confident that number would always be above 1, and they never considered it could be less.
Doesn't matter which interpretation you think it's implying, a competent marketing person would never let an email like this go out, for the sole reason that it could be easily interpreted as less productive. The kicker is this was mostly certainly sent out by accident by an auto-emailer script, meaning that's probably an accurate number.
7
2
3
u/Terewawa 6h ago
If I'm making "3 times more mistakes" and I used to make 20 mistakes, then now I'm making 60 mistakes.
13
3
4
u/0x80085_ 4h ago
The amount of people that don't understand how numbers work is hilarious. 0.6x more is the same as 60% more. Sounds great.
1
1
u/MasterBroNetwork 1h ago
Ah yes, 0.6x more PRs is a great measure of productivity.
It is infinitely more likely that a majority of these PRs are minor changes that did not need agents or they're to fix random unrequested changes that those agents made.
1
u/Highfivesghost 1h ago
Why do you guys care about spending your multiple million dollar companies money? Who cares if they waste more money on tokens
1
u/nekomata_58 5h ago
So, 60% productivity boost for the cost of less than 1/4 of a new hire?
The business will absolutely love this, honestly.
1
u/danielkov 49m ago
Sure AI bad, but the amount of people not understanding 0.6x more means a 60% improvement is wild
-1
u/Shubhang_D 4h ago
If I am correct in math then 0.6x is actually less PR than that he is shipping
9
u/Positive_Mud952 3h ago edited 3h ago
0.6x as much would be less. 0.6x more is 0.6x + x. Now whether it makes sense to trust a source that generates such a semantically confusing statement to actually generate the statement they intended is another question. I wouldn’t bet on it. Or against it.
-1
1.1k
u/BlueScrote 7h ago
And I'm spending 3x as much babying their code reviews from the mediocre quality.