8 ms·

> with storage costs being exponentially higher in the US than in China Can we please stop using „exponential“ like this? Maybe you meant orders of magnitude?

dfrankow 6y ago
Used to bother me too, as a mathematician. Then I learned about linguistics. If enough people use words a certain way, then it's vernacular. Sadly, I think this usage is long accepted.
- UI_at_80x24 6y ago
  This is the same annoyance when you see somebody say: It cost 10X less if we use 'Y' over 'Z'. My brain always short circuits and says "I think they mean it costs 1/10th...." "There was a 5 times decease in crime..." uggh, just give me the damn numbers. Is crime now at 1/20th the previous level??? I know they are telling us it's less, and I don't even care about the story; but i waste brain power trying to grok what they really mean.
  - lisper 6y ago
    I'm as much of a grammar nazi as anyone, but I think this usage is defensible. 10 is ten times more than 1. So 1 is arguably ten times less than 10. Certainly there are more important things to fret about, like: "Tim went to the store with he and I.' Arrgghh!!!
    - recursive 6y ago
      Even "ten times more" isn't exactly clear in my opinion. 100% more is two times. 900% more is ten times. Ten times more is... eleven times? I try to say "{x} is ten times {y}", which is, as far as I can tell is unambiguous. (Mostly, what's ten times colder?)
      - telotortium 6y ago
        "x more than y" means "y + x" - a sum. "x% more than y" means "y + x% = y + y×(x÷100)" and "x% less than y" means "y - x% = y - y×(x÷100)". To me, "x times more than y" means the same as "x times as much as y" only "y×x" and "x times less than y" means "y÷x". I guess this might seem ambiguous if you bracket the expression like "x times (more than) y", but in practice it's bracketed like "x (times more than) y". (Native American English speaker)
    - aidenn0 6y ago
      11 is 10 times more than 1. 10 is 10 times as large as 1.
      - telotortium 6y ago
        You'd really say 32 is 3 times more than 8?
        aidenn0 6y ago
        Well I'd rather say it's 4 times the size of 8, but I certainly don't say that 6 is "75% more than 8" [edit] I also wouldn't say that 6 is "75% less than 8" if your thought is that "more" just indicates a bigger value.
        telotortium 6y ago
        6 is 25% less than 8 - it's 75% of 8.
        aidenn0 6y ago
        I agree; and similarly 10 is 25% more than 8 and 125% of 8.
- overlordalex 6y ago
  My go-to example is "awful". The original meaning is literally to be full of awe. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a speaker today that adheres to that meaning over simply meaning "very bad", which is almost an antonym. Languages change and are influenced by their use, so you need to pick your battles. If something can be unambiguously understood then you're going to be fighting an uphill battle and it's only a matter of time
- opportune 6y ago
  I have only really noticed the incorrect use of the word “exponential” for the past couple years, here’s hoping it’s not too late to reverse course!
dexterdog 6y ago
Are you OK with the use of 'decimated'?
- InitialLastName 6y ago
  Given that 900/8000 are out with COVID, that's within a 20% tolerance of being correct.
- jmalicki 6y ago
  seconding InitialLastName, this is one of the few cases where decimated is used appropriately with its initial meaning
foobarian 6y ago
This begs the question whether it's also OK to use "beg the question" in this manner.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
It used to bother me too, and some usage still bothers the hell out of me, but there’s a way "exponentially large" works fine. An exponential change is a change on a log scale. Instead of current+d it’s exp[current+d]. So exponential change makes sense. “Exponentially higher” means on a log scale it’s higher enough to be worth commenting on. It’s mathematically correctly synonymous with an order(s) of magnitude change. Of course, that gets you into the debate over what exponent or log base to use. Is 2x an order of magnitude increase? 1.1x? 10x? It’s all fuzzy. And then there are people who just use it as “hella” and that still drives me nuts. “It increased by 10% but that matters so much to me that 10% is exponentially larger!” That kind of usage seems to be catching on too as “exponentially” further enters the lexicon of people who don’t remember what an exponent is. I’ll fight that one forever.
jdmichal 6y ago
The "exponential" is possibly referring the `n` in scientific notation `×10ⁿ`. IE, it's referring to being larger on a logarithmic rather than linear scale.

dfrankow 6y ago

Used to bother me too, as a mathematician. Then I learned about linguistics. If enough people use words a certain way, then it's vernacular. Sadly, I think this usage is long accepted.

UI_at_80x24 6y ago
This is the same annoyance when you see somebody say: It cost 10X less if we use 'Y' over 'Z'. My brain always short circuits and says "I think they mean it costs 1/10th...." "There was a 5 times decease in crime..." uggh, just give me the damn numbers. Is crime now at 1/20th the previous level??? I know they are telling us it's less, and I don't even care about the story; but i waste brain power trying to grok what they really mean.
- lisper 6y ago
  I'm as much of a grammar nazi as anyone, but I think this usage is defensible. 10 is ten times more than 1. So 1 is arguably ten times less than 10. Certainly there are more important things to fret about, like: "Tim went to the store with he and I.' Arrgghh!!!
  - recursive 6y ago
    Even "ten times more" isn't exactly clear in my opinion. 100% more is two times. 900% more is ten times. Ten times more is... eleven times? I try to say "{x} is ten times {y}", which is, as far as I can tell is unambiguous. (Mostly, what's ten times colder?)
    - telotortium 6y ago
      "x more than y" means "y + x" - a sum. "x% more than y" means "y + x% = y + y×(x÷100)" and "x% less than y" means "y - x% = y - y×(x÷100)". To me, "x times more than y" means the same as "x times as much as y" only "y×x" and "x times less than y" means "y÷x". I guess this might seem ambiguous if you bracket the expression like "x times (more than) y", but in practice it's bracketed like "x (times more than) y". (Native American English speaker)
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    11 is 10 times more than 1. 10 is 10 times as large as 1.
    - telotortium 6y ago
      You'd really say 32 is 3 times more than 8?
      - aidenn0 6y ago
        Well I'd rather say it's 4 times the size of 8, but I certainly don't say that 6 is "75% more than 8" [edit] I also wouldn't say that 6 is "75% less than 8" if your thought is that "more" just indicates a bigger value.
        telotortium 6y ago
        6 is 25% less than 8 - it's 75% of 8.
        aidenn0 6y ago
        I agree; and similarly 10 is 25% more than 8 and 125% of 8.
overlordalex 6y ago
My go-to example is "awful". The original meaning is literally to be full of awe. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a speaker today that adheres to that meaning over simply meaning "very bad", which is almost an antonym. Languages change and are influenced by their use, so you need to pick your battles. If something can be unambiguously understood then you're going to be fighting an uphill battle and it's only a matter of time
opportune 6y ago
I have only really noticed the incorrect use of the word “exponential” for the past couple years, here’s hoping it’s not too late to reverse course!

dexterdog 6y ago

Are you OK with the use of 'decimated'?

InitialLastName 6y ago
Given that 900/8000 are out with COVID, that's within a 20% tolerance of being correct.
jmalicki 6y ago
seconding InitialLastName, this is one of the few cases where decimated is used appropriately with its initial meaning

foobarian 6y ago

This begs the question whether it's also OK to use "beg the question" in this manner.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago

It used to bother me too, and some usage still bothers the hell out of me, but there’s a way "exponentially large" works fine. An exponential change is a change on a log scale. Instead of current+d it’s exp[current+d]. So exponential change makes sense. “Exponentially higher” means on a log scale it’s higher enough to be worth commenting on. It’s mathematically correctly synonymous with an order(s) of magnitude change. Of course, that gets you into the debate over what exponent or log base to use. Is 2x an order of magnitude increase? 1.1x? 10x? It’s all fuzzy. And then there are people who just use it as “hella” and that still drives me nuts. “It increased by 10% but that matters so much to me that 10% is exponentially larger!” That kind of usage seems to be catching on too as “exponentially” further enters the lexicon of people who don’t remember what an exponent is. I’ll fight that one forever.

jdmichal 6y ago

The "exponential" is possibly referring the `n` in scientific notation `×10ⁿ`. IE, it's referring to being larger on a logarithmic rather than linear scale.