5 ms·

Is maddening use of the english language like "reduce pesticide use by 20 times" a part of some big-name style guide now? I can't remember the last time I've s

Is maddening use of the english language like "reduce pesticide use by 20 times" a part of some big-name style guide now? I can't remember the last time I've seen a major publication phrase a reduction in a way that makes sense. Things like "Reduce by 95%" or "require 1/20th of the pesticide" seem to be stricken by copy editors in favor of nonsensical multiplication.

21 8y ago
Not all public is as math-literate as you.
seandougall 8y ago
I find it just as maddening as you do. But I have to concede to the descriptivists that it’s clear and unambiguous in context, as well as being in common use.
- tryptophan 8y ago
  I don't find it clear at all. 20 times what? All I get out of that is that whatever reduction is happening is probably big because I'm not context blind, but then again it could be a 20 x .000001% reduction. When saying X is 20 times larger that is unambiguous, it just means 20X. When something is being reduced 20 times what does that mean? X - something20?? X-20? X/20?
  - tlb 8y ago
    "Reduce X by 20 times" means that X becomes X/20.
  - seandougall 8y ago
    I read it as a shorthand for "reduce by a factor of 20" -- crucially, I believe `x` is meant to represent `⨉` (the multiplication symbol), as opposed to `𝓍` (a scalar variable). The reason it drives me crazy is that I can't help but read it as being equivalent to multiplying by -19 (particularly when it's phrased like "such and such is now 20x less foobarish"). But even I have to concede that it clearly doesn't mean that.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  It's not universally clear from context, though; the literal reading is tenable in any case where a negative final value isn't inherently ludicrous, so it's ambiguous in at least that case. And I've often seen it used in that case. The peculiar usage is “clear” as an idiom that conflicts with the individual meanings of the component words iff the speaker and listener are aware of the idiom and treat the idiomatic reading as overriding the natural reading. Moreover, the idiom is supported by, and only intuitive as the inverse of, a usage which is itself both literally incorrect and never disambiguated from the literal meaning by context, specifically, the use of “N times larger” to mean what is literally meant by “N times as large” rather than its natural literal meaning of “N+1 times as large”.
burfog 8y ago
It should be decibels. We get a 13 dB pesticide reduction.

21 8y ago

Not all public is as math-literate as you.

seandougall 8y ago

I find it just as maddening as you do. But I have to concede to the descriptivists that it’s clear and unambiguous in context, as well as being in common use.

tryptophan 8y ago
I don't find it clear at all. 20 times what? All I get out of that is that whatever reduction is happening is probably big because I'm not context blind, but then again it could be a 20 x .000001% reduction. When saying X is 20 times larger that is unambiguous, it just means 20X. When something is being reduced 20 times what does that mean? X - something20?? X-20? X/20?
- tlb 8y ago
  "Reduce X by 20 times" means that X becomes X/20.
- seandougall 8y ago
  I read it as a shorthand for "reduce by a factor of 20" -- crucially, I believe `x` is meant to represent `⨉` (the multiplication symbol), as opposed to `𝓍` (a scalar variable). The reason it drives me crazy is that I can't help but read it as being equivalent to multiplying by -19 (particularly when it's phrased like "such and such is now 20x less foobarish"). But even I have to concede that it clearly doesn't mean that.
dragonwriter 8y ago
It's not universally clear from context, though; the literal reading is tenable in any case where a negative final value isn't inherently ludicrous, so it's ambiguous in at least that case. And I've often seen it used in that case. The peculiar usage is “clear” as an idiom that conflicts with the individual meanings of the component words iff the speaker and listener are aware of the idiom and treat the idiomatic reading as overriding the natural reading. Moreover, the idiom is supported by, and only intuitive as the inverse of, a usage which is itself both literally incorrect and never disambiguated from the literal meaning by context, specifically, the use of “N times larger” to mean what is literally meant by “N times as large” rather than its natural literal meaning of “N+1 times as large”.

burfog 8y ago

It should be decibels. We get a 13 dB pesticide reduction.