[dragonwriter]

> up to 3-3000x+ faster than stdlib

Note that this is semantically exactly equivalent to "up to 3000x faster than stdlib" and doesn't actually claim any particular actual speedup since "up to" denotes an upper bound, not a lower bound or expected value. It’s standard misleading-but-not-technically-false marketing language to create a false impression because people tend to focus on the number and ignore the "up to".

[Dylan16807]

When you say "up to" about a list of data points, it's not just a bound. At least one has to reach that amount or it's a lie.

[arcticbull]

With the “up to 3-3000x+” language the plus leaves us with the entire number line.

[supriyo-biswas]

Reminds me of https://xkcd.com/870/

[nkrisc]

Saying “up to” means that bound is the maximum value of the data set. It may be far from the median value, but it is included (or you’re lying). With any other interpretation the phrase has no meaning whatsoever.

[nkrisc]

I will concede, proactively, that "up to" could refer to some maximum possible bound, even if the current set doesn't include a value at that bound, though I would argue that's likely deceptive wording. For example, you could say that each carton of of eggs on a pallet contains up to 12 eggs, because that's the maximum capacity of the carton, even if none of the actual cartons on this pallet actually have 12 eggs in them.

[DonHopkins]

3000x Faster Optimized Random Number Generator: https://xkcd.com/221/