4 ms·
> 70 percent more tomatoes per 1,000 gallons of water Am I reading this wrong? The "1000 gallons" seems superfluous since we're already talking about percenta
by wmil 11y ago
> 70 percent more tomatoes per 1,000 gallons of water
Am I reading this wrong? The "1000 gallons" seems superfluous since we're already talking about percentages. Replace it with "gallon of water" or even "amount of water" and the 70% doesn't change.
- Mz 11y agoI think it is kind of a standard measure when talking large scale water usage. He's a farmer. It is probably habit to speak of water in those terms. His mental space is different from someone dealing with household usage.
- cdr 11y agoIf the measurement was originally per 1000 gallons it makes sense to preserve the unit. It may be rounded from acre-foot/year, which is 893 gallons/day.
- SilasX 11y agoBecause "70 percent more tomatoes per unit of water" is too abstract for most people.
- cjensen 11y agoYes, it's mathematically superfluous. Real human communication is an evolved trait which often is logically or mathematically weird. Ask a person how many brownies to bake for a party and they might say "at least 10 to 20." The "to 20" is mathematically without meaning, but it seems to communicate something.
- jessedhillon 11y agoIs "to 20" superfluous? If they had said "at least 10" that leaves you open to baking a thousand. The "to 20" caps the possible range and makes the statement more confined.
- Scotlandr 11y agoI don't believe that it does cap the range. I see it as: At least x (where x = 10-20). X is the minimum, and you can always exceed it, whether it is a single value or a range. If you bake 100 brownies, you satisfy the requirement of baking at least 10 brownies, as well as the requirement of baking at least 10 to 20 brownies.
- nikanj 11y ago"The lower bound is estimated to be between 10 and 20"