3 ms·
That is a questionable interpretation. It means the 98% one lets twice as much air in, but it doesn't block twice as much wind because the amount of ambient win
by eximius 7y ago
That is a questionable interpretation. It means the 98% one lets twice as much air in, but it doesn't block twice as much wind because the amount of ambient wind remains constant.
To be more explicit, if there are 100 units of wind and one blocks 98 units, the other blocks 99 units. So one lets twice as much air in than the other, but I wouldn't consider that saying that one was 'twice as effective'. The relative improvement is (99-98)/98 ~ 1%.
- enraged_camel 7y agoYour comment illustrates the point I'm making. If windbreaker A let's in 2 units of wind out of 100 and windbreaker B lets in 1 unit of wind out of 100, that means windbreaker B is twice as effective at blocking wind, because it lets in half as much wind as windbreaker A.
- kilburn 7y agoI don't agree. It may mean "A is two times worse than B at blocking wind", but not "B is twice as good (effective) as A" at it.
- eximius 7y agoThis is the point I wanted to make. English is terribly imprecise about these things.
- around_here 7y agoBut that’s not the point though. What is the _real_ difference between 98% and 99% in real world terms? How much colder will you feel? Will it dry out your skin faster? How much faster? It’s a difference against zero.
- enraged_camel 7y ago>>It’s a difference against zero. Exactly. This is why it is accurate to say that windbreaker B is twice as effective.