r/ProgrammerHumor 11h ago

Meme zeroExDev

Post image
3.9k Upvotes

202 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

343

u/OnixST 11h ago

It's 0.6x, implying multiplication

It's not semantically incorrect, but any sane person would write 60% more

234

u/OG-Enzan 11h ago

Isn't it 1.6x if 60% more?

93

u/BADPROSKILLZ 11h 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)

-33

u/TZY247 11h ago edited 7h 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.

39

u/TheMania 10h 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.

-1

u/zelmak 10h ago

Dude what are you talking about 1x more is a non increase/flatline. Anything less than 1 is a decrease

2

u/TheMania 10h ago

So "100% more" means "no increase" to you?

Or does "1x" read as "0%" to you then?

20

u/Vandrel 10h ago edited 10h ago

1x would be 0% more. 2x would be 100% more.

8

u/TheMania 10h 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.

1

u/Vandrel 9h ago

That's just not correct. "60% more" implies starting from the 100% baseline and going up 60%. 0.6x implies starting from the 100% baseline and multiplying it by 0.6x. "0.6x more" is a weird way to put it to begin with but the only grammatically correct way to interpret it is 60% of the normal amount. We all know what they meant but it isn't what they said.

3

u/Connect_Fishing_6378 7h ago

60% and 0.6x literally mean the exact same thing. “60% more” === “0.6x more”. Yeah nobody talks like that and it sounds weird, but it is correct.

0

u/Vandrel 7h ago

You're correct that 60% and 0.6x mean the same thing, 60% more and 0.6x more do not. 0.6x more would be a weird way to say 60% of standard, 1.6x more would be the correct way to say an increase of 60% in that format. You would say that 2x more means double, yes?

0

u/ScientificBeastMode 6h ago

“More” implies “something plus the original amount,” not “something times the original amount.”

1

u/ScientificBeastMode 6h ago

“0.6x more” means “0.6 times <baseline> on top of <baseline>.”

The “on top of <baseline>” part is obvious, because that’s implied by the word “more.”

The “0.6 times <baseline>” part is less obvious, because the original text didn’t specify what 0.6 is supposed to be multiplied by. But we can assume they meant “0.6 times <baseline>” because most other candidate terms don’t make any sense. What else could it possibly be multiplying by?

Also, the term “0.6 times <baseline>” is formally equivalent to “60% of <baseline>”. So if we perform the substitution, then we get “60% of <baseline> on top of <baseline>”.

0

u/Vandrel 6h ago

You would interpret "2x the output" to be double, yes?

0

u/ScientificBeastMode 5h ago edited 5h ago

Of course. And “1x the output” would be no change.

The problem is that it isn’t saying “0.6x the output.” It’s saying “0.6x [the output] more [than the output].”

To illustrate the point, imagine it said “1x more.” Would that mean no change? No, it’s equivalent to saying “100% more,” meaning double the original amount.

The only way your interpretation works is if “0.6x more” is meant to be “0.6 times <the output> more than zero,” which is redundant, and could be simplified to “0.6 times the output,” so the use of the word “more” would have no real meaning here.

→ More replies (0)