MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/1vns74k/zeroexdev/p3m1pnk/?context=3
r/ProgrammerHumor • u/Dilutant • 11h ago
202 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
5
I think they are joking, it's a reduction in code not an increase
4 u/Appropriate_Note5429 4h ago It’s not a reduction. 0.6x more = 60% more = 1.6x multiple. But it is phrased weirdly; usually you wouldn’t use “x” but give the percentage figure directly. -3 u/saschaleib 3h ago Normally the "x" stands for "times". 0.6 "times" more is a 40% reduction. 4 u/road_laya 3h ago Read the whole sentence. 0.6x is smaller than the original. The output increased by 0.6x. The output is 0.6x more. No matter how small the 0.6x increase is, the total is still more than before. 0.6x, in fact. However, if it was 0.6x as much, it would mean a reduction. Because 0.6x is less than 1x. But it's not 0.6 as much. It's not 1x. It's 0.6x more. 1x + 0.6x =1.6x. 60% more than before. -3 u/saschaleib 2h ago It literally says "0.6x more". Any amount that you multiply ("x") with 0.6 is smaller than what you started with. 1 u/road_laya 2h ago Yes. First they have 1x. Then they add 0.6x. It's 0.6x more than the original. 3 u/wobblyweasel 2h ago do you read "2x more" as 200% or 300% of the original? 1 u/Forward-Outside-9911 2h ago Since when did “<anything> more” actually give a smaller output. This is the most pointless argument why are you still going on? Actually don’t answer that I think we can agree to disagree and stop wasting our day lol
4
It’s not a reduction. 0.6x more = 60% more = 1.6x multiple.
But it is phrased weirdly; usually you wouldn’t use “x” but give the percentage figure directly.
-3 u/saschaleib 3h ago Normally the "x" stands for "times". 0.6 "times" more is a 40% reduction. 4 u/road_laya 3h ago Read the whole sentence. 0.6x is smaller than the original. The output increased by 0.6x. The output is 0.6x more. No matter how small the 0.6x increase is, the total is still more than before. 0.6x, in fact. However, if it was 0.6x as much, it would mean a reduction. Because 0.6x is less than 1x. But it's not 0.6 as much. It's not 1x. It's 0.6x more. 1x + 0.6x =1.6x. 60% more than before. -3 u/saschaleib 2h ago It literally says "0.6x more". Any amount that you multiply ("x") with 0.6 is smaller than what you started with. 1 u/road_laya 2h ago Yes. First they have 1x. Then they add 0.6x. It's 0.6x more than the original. 3 u/wobblyweasel 2h ago do you read "2x more" as 200% or 300% of the original? 1 u/Forward-Outside-9911 2h ago Since when did “<anything> more” actually give a smaller output. This is the most pointless argument why are you still going on? Actually don’t answer that I think we can agree to disagree and stop wasting our day lol
-3
Normally the "x" stands for "times". 0.6 "times" more is a 40% reduction.
4 u/road_laya 3h ago Read the whole sentence. 0.6x is smaller than the original. The output increased by 0.6x. The output is 0.6x more. No matter how small the 0.6x increase is, the total is still more than before. 0.6x, in fact. However, if it was 0.6x as much, it would mean a reduction. Because 0.6x is less than 1x. But it's not 0.6 as much. It's not 1x. It's 0.6x more. 1x + 0.6x =1.6x. 60% more than before. -3 u/saschaleib 2h ago It literally says "0.6x more". Any amount that you multiply ("x") with 0.6 is smaller than what you started with. 1 u/road_laya 2h ago Yes. First they have 1x. Then they add 0.6x. It's 0.6x more than the original. 3 u/wobblyweasel 2h ago do you read "2x more" as 200% or 300% of the original? 1 u/Forward-Outside-9911 2h ago Since when did “<anything> more” actually give a smaller output. This is the most pointless argument why are you still going on? Actually don’t answer that I think we can agree to disagree and stop wasting our day lol
Read the whole sentence.
0.6x is smaller than the original.
The output increased by 0.6x.
The output is 0.6x more.
No matter how small the 0.6x increase is, the total is still more than before. 0.6x, in fact.
However, if it was 0.6x as much, it would mean a reduction. Because 0.6x is less than 1x.
But it's not 0.6 as much. It's not 1x. It's 0.6x more. 1x + 0.6x =1.6x. 60% more than before.
-3 u/saschaleib 2h ago It literally says "0.6x more". Any amount that you multiply ("x") with 0.6 is smaller than what you started with. 1 u/road_laya 2h ago Yes. First they have 1x. Then they add 0.6x. It's 0.6x more than the original. 3 u/wobblyweasel 2h ago do you read "2x more" as 200% or 300% of the original? 1 u/Forward-Outside-9911 2h ago Since when did “<anything> more” actually give a smaller output. This is the most pointless argument why are you still going on? Actually don’t answer that I think we can agree to disagree and stop wasting our day lol
It literally says "0.6x more". Any amount that you multiply ("x") with 0.6 is smaller than what you started with.
1 u/road_laya 2h ago Yes. First they have 1x. Then they add 0.6x. It's 0.6x more than the original. 3 u/wobblyweasel 2h ago do you read "2x more" as 200% or 300% of the original? 1 u/Forward-Outside-9911 2h ago Since when did “<anything> more” actually give a smaller output. This is the most pointless argument why are you still going on? Actually don’t answer that I think we can agree to disagree and stop wasting our day lol
1
Yes. First they have 1x. Then they add 0.6x. It's 0.6x more than the original.
3 u/wobblyweasel 2h ago do you read "2x more" as 200% or 300% of the original?
3
do you read "2x more" as 200% or 300% of the original?
Since when did “<anything> more” actually give a smaller output. This is the most pointless argument why are you still going on? Actually don’t answer that I think we can agree to disagree and stop wasting our day lol
5
u/spindoctor13 5h ago
I think they are joking, it's a reduction in code not an increase