Thread

1. miffy900 · 1789683723 · focus · HN ↗

   I really wish people would stop saying N times smaller than something when making a comparison; that makes no sense - it's 1/9th (11.11%) the size. You don't get a smaller quantity by multiplying by a number greater than 1.0. You could instead reverse the subjects being compared - "the original model is 9x bigger than this new smaller, efficient model" or some such. That makes sense.

   I keep seeing this being used when people talk about efficiency or performance gains and it's just very unintuitive language.

   1. stkdump · 1789720553 · focus · HN ↗

      Also, X is 9 times larger than Y and X is 9 times as large as Y are two different statements.

      1. so-cal-schemer · 1789763244 · focus · HN ↗

         to spell it out:

         200% as large as 1 is 2.

         200% larger than 1 is 3..

         1. so-cal-schemer · 1789767630 · focus · HN ↗

            200% (or 2x) smaller than 3 is.. ?

            1. stkdump · 1789970470 · focus · HN ↗

               10% smaller is 3*0.1=0.3 smaller than 3, which is 3-0.3=2.7

               So 200% smaller is 3*2=6 smaller than 3, which is 3-6=-3

               Which is why these kinds of statements usually don't make any sense at all. Usually something can't be more than 100% smaller, at which point it is completely gone.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.