4 ms·
Sorry for noise - but the phrase 'laser focus' always bugs me. AIUI, lasers aren't focussed (which I would define as: having non-parallel rays converging on a p
by jbert 16y ago
Sorry for noise - but the phrase 'laser focus' always bugs me. AIUI, lasers aren't focussed (which I would define as: having non-parallel rays converging on a point), they are collimated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collimated_light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collimated_light (i.e. parallel).
Of course I understand the sentiment, and I similarly understand that when people say "exponential" they commonly mean "big" rather then "has rate of growth proportional to current value".
To try and rescue some signal from my noise - sometimes it's possible to "turn off" people with choices of phrase. Particularly technical people of a certain bent. That can be a useful observation for a technical startup founder.
- thankuz 16y agoI see your points and they are well received. I am not THAT scientific, it's really just an expression, but to argue your point a bit I pose this: Rather than thinking of it as a laser being focused on an object or location (cause to converge on or toward a central point) try thinking of it as physical time and effort (focus) in a direct beam like a laser (concentration of attention or physical energy on something). Really, it all depends on your perspective, and how you define "focus". And, whether or not you take it as an analogy or for face value.
- lkozma 16y agoIt could be understood as laser-like (i.e. parallel, collimated, non-diverging etc.) focus (i.e. mental focus, attention etc.). In this case the expression is correct: it just means "non-diverging attention" and doesn't say anything untrue about lasers. I'm with you on exponential though.
- alexqgb 16y agoI love nerds.