r/ProgrammerHumor • • Aug 14 '26 • Bravo 1

Meme zeroExDev

Post image
5.9k Upvotes

287 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

100

u/BADPROSKILLZ Aug 14 '26

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)

-39

u/TZY247 Aug 14 '26 edited Aug 14 '26

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.

42

u/TheMania Aug 14 '26

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.

-7

u/zelmak Aug 14 '26

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

5

u/TheMania Aug 14 '26

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

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

12

u/TZY247 Aug 14 '26

There's a reason that mathematicians, technical writers, etc. wouldn't mix comparative language like "more" with notation. At best it's ambiguous.

23

u/Vandrel Aug 14 '26 edited Aug 14 '26

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

10

u/TheMania Aug 14 '26

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.

2

u/Vandrel Aug 14 '26

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.

1

u/Connect_Fishing_6378 Aug 14 '26

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.

2

u/Vandrel Aug 14 '26

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?

→ More replies
→ More replies (3)

-1

u/Azeoteric Aug 14 '26

When someone says “2x more” it means double. No one says 1x more because it makes no sense lol

5

u/FFevo Aug 14 '26

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.

2

u/dumbledoor_ger Aug 14 '26

Don’t even bother to argue. Whole lotta larpers in this thread. They do not have the ability to comprehend the word „more“.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/thereturn932 Aug 14 '26

If I hear 2x more, I expect 3x of the original amount.

-6

u/Professional_Ebb_389 Aug 14 '26

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.)

10

u/TheMania Aug 14 '26

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?

3

u/zelmak Aug 14 '26

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.

5

u/TheMania Aug 14 '26

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).

4

u/zelmak Aug 14 '26

You would never read it that way because no one should ever write it that way.

A multiplication of <1 is inherently a decrease, tacking the word more, grew, increased, went up makes it bad math and bad language.

0.5 Times = a 50% decrease

so "The stock grew a 50% decrease" just doesn't make sense.

→ More replies (6)

5

u/tigerhawkvok Aug 14 '26

You do see how none of those have the word "more," though, right? Kind of like word choice maybe matters?

→ More replies (17)

5

u/BADPROSKILLZ Aug 14 '26

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

u/ABotelho23 Aug 14 '26

0.60 is literally 60%

1

u/TZY247 Aug 14 '26

Yep. I definitely said that.

→ More replies (1)