Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by WanderPanda 1969 days ago
> with storage costs being exponentially higher in the US than in China

Can we please stop using „exponential“ like this? Maybe you meant orders of magnitude?

5 comments

Used to bother me too, as a mathematician. Then I learned about linguistics. If enough people use words a certain way, then it's vernacular. Sadly, I think this usage is long accepted.
This is the same annoyance when you see somebody say:

It cost 10X less if we use 'Y' over 'Z'.

My brain always short circuits and says "I think they mean it costs 1/10th...."

"There was a 5 times decease in crime..." uggh, just give me the damn numbers. Is crime now at 1/20th the previous level???

I know they are telling us it's less, and I don't even care about the story; but i waste brain power trying to grok what they really mean.

I'm as much of a grammar nazi as anyone, but I think this usage is defensible. 10 is ten times more than 1. So 1 is arguably ten times less than 10.

Certainly there are more important things to fret about, like: "Tim went to the store with he and I.' Arrgghh!!!

Even "ten times more" isn't exactly clear in my opinion. 100% more is two times. 900% more is ten times. Ten times more is... eleven times?

I try to say "{x} is ten times {y}", which is, as far as I can tell is unambiguous. (Mostly, what's ten times colder?)

"x more than y" means "y + x" - a sum. "x% more than y" means "y + x% = y + y×(x÷100)" and "x% less than y" means "y - x% = y - y×(x÷100)".

To me, "x times more than y" means the same as "x times as much as y" only "y×x" and "x times less than y" means "y÷x". I guess this might seem ambiguous if you bracket the expression like "x times (more than) y", but in practice it's bracketed like "x (times more than) y".

(Native American English speaker)

11 is 10 times more than 1. 10 is 10 times as large as 1.
You'd really say 32 is 3 times more than 8?
Well I'd rather say it's 4 times the size of 8, but I certainly don't say that 6 is "75% more than 8"

[edit]

I also wouldn't say that 6 is "75% less than 8" if your thought is that "more" just indicates a bigger value.

My go-to example is "awful". The original meaning is literally to be full of awe. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a speaker today that adheres to that meaning over simply meaning "very bad", which is almost an antonym.

Languages change and are influenced by their use, so you need to pick your battles. If something can be unambiguously understood then you're going to be fighting an uphill battle and it's only a matter of time

I have only really noticed the incorrect use of the word “exponential” for the past couple years, here’s hoping it’s not too late to reverse course!
It used to bother me too, and some usage still bothers the hell out of me, but there’s a way "exponentially large" works fine.

An exponential change is a change on a log scale. Instead of current+d it’s exp[current+d]. So exponential change makes sense. “Exponentially higher” means on a log scale it’s higher enough to be worth commenting on. It’s mathematically correctly synonymous with an order(s) of magnitude change.

Of course, that gets you into the debate over what exponent or log base to use. Is 2x an order of magnitude increase? 1.1x? 10x? It’s all fuzzy.

And then there are people who just use it as “hella” and that still drives me nuts. “It increased by 10% but that matters so much to me that 10% is exponentially larger!” That kind of usage seems to be catching on too as “exponentially” further enters the lexicon of people who don’t remember what an exponent is. I’ll fight that one forever.

Are you OK with the use of 'decimated'?
Given that 900/8000 are out with COVID, that's within a 20% tolerance of being correct.
seconding InitialLastName, this is one of the few cases where decimated is used appropriately with its initial meaning
This begs the question whether it's also OK to use "beg the question" in this manner.
The "exponential" is possibly referring the `n` in scientific notation `×10ⁿ`. IE, it's referring to being larger on a logarithmic rather than linear scale.