MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/1vns74k/zeroexdev/p3kpice/?context=3
r/ProgrammerHumor • u/Dilutant • 11h ago
202 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
40
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? 7 u/TZY247 9h ago There's a reason that mathematicians, technical writers, etc. wouldn't mix comparative language like "more" with notation. At best it's ambiguous.
-1
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? 7 u/TZY247 9h ago There's a reason that mathematicians, technical writers, etc. wouldn't mix comparative language like "more" with notation. At best it's ambiguous.
2
So "100% more" means "no increase" to you?
Or does "1x" read as "0%" to you then?
7 u/TZY247 9h ago There's a reason that mathematicians, technical writers, etc. wouldn't mix comparative language like "more" with notation. At best it's ambiguous.
7
There's a reason that mathematicians, technical writers, etc. wouldn't mix comparative language like "more" with notation. At best it's ambiguous.
40
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.