[qume]

Hey respected downvoters - pure means homogeneous. Can you please explain to be what ultra homogeneous means?

When discussing scientific concepts being haphazard with language seems like it should be called out, especially when the source is a respected publication like wired.

Simply take a few seconds to let us all know the error in my ways please.

[gh02t]

In this context "pure" is meaningless (truly 100% pure silicon is impossible to obtain in quantity), whereas "ultra pure" is a technical term that refers to a specific level of purity. The meanings are context dependent.

It isn't haphazard, it's actually hyper specific and the terms have clear definitions in context. And in this case they are defined in the article.

[upandatom]

Pure is not 100%. The article talks about 99.XXX percentages depending on application.

[dang]

Please don't do flamewars on HN and for heaven's sake not nitpicky pedantic ones.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[sanxiyn]

Your argument is valid but uninteresting, hence my downvote. You should mail WIRED for such corrections instead of posting comments to HN. WIRED won't read your HN comments.

[jsjohnst]

I would argue it isn’t even valid. Words have meaning in context, not isolation. There were lots of examples of words misused from their most exact dictionary definition given in this thread, which I’ll leave as an exercise to scroll up if you want to read. This was instead a pointless pedantic rant by a few folks.