5 ms·

This sounded silly until I remembered that software versioning trips me up just the same. I always read 1.2.11 as < 1.2.2

xcskier56 5y ago
This is so true. The other day I spent a good 10 minutes trying to upgrade a gem to > 2.3 when it was already at 2.11
Hamuko 5y ago
I find normal version numbers pretty simple as a software developer (general population seemed to be buffled by how macOS 10.9 could ever be followed by macOS 10.10) but I always get confused when I see Cyberpunk 2077's version numbers that go 1.22 → 1.23 → 1.3 → 1.31. It just doesn't compute that you go from minor version 23 to minor version 3.
dylan604 5y ago
Yes, but #.#.# is not a valid number/decimal/monetary notation. You cannot enter that number into a calculator, and I'm not sure you'd even be able to use that as a valid numerical value in any programming language. For anyone getting confused that 0.1 == 0.10, then how is that the writer's fault? There are formatting requirements that require a significant digit number of places (scientific notation as an example). I don't know that actually applies to bank marketing material, but it could be a style guide type of thing to keep numbers formatted the same. Either way, it does not change the value of the number. If you misread it, it is not the company's fault. They have provided factual information.
- bmitc 5y ago
  > If you misread it, it is not the company's fault. They have provided factual information. That’s really not a fair argument given advertising and marketing theory and schemes. Who knows about this particular case since we don’t know if the 0.10% needed to be compared to other rates like 0.08%, where the formatting would maybe make more sense. But it’s not beyond imagination that someone could try to hook a customer with numbers. It’s done all the time with the whole $8.99 thing.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    That's funny timing, as I just mentioned the other day on here that the $.99 vs $1.00 thing was a marketing tactic. However, someone countered that it is a remnant from the old days of forcing the clerk to ring out the customer at the register to make correct change. This was to help avoid the temptation of pocketing the exact dollar amount. A pricing practice that has essentially just stuck around, and possibly repurposed???? Either way, I've learned basic maths. .1 == .10. I would be willing to guess that the average public would not think that .10 > .1, and that this whole confusion is really only for developers that have started using decimal notation in versions where .10 > .1 is true.
    - hermitdev 5y ago
      As an engineer, the trailing 0 is significant: it indicates with what precision it was rounded to. [0.5, .15) could become .1, with 1 significant digit, but not .10 with 2 significant digits. Doubtful it matters in this case, but that extra zero can convey extra meaning.
kelp 5y ago
For this reason I tend to prefer the way OpenBSD versions their releases. They just did 6.9 and the next one will be 7.0. But this really only works over long periods of time because they only do two releases a year. It took me a bit to get my head around Linux kernel versioning where the 2nd digit just goes up until they feel like it's time for a new first digit version.
- jobigoud 5y ago
  In that case the change of major version loses its meaning. They could use 69 and 70.
cardiffspaceman 5y ago
Rock climbing's ratings with Yosemite Decimal System have 5.10 harder than 5.9 [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosemite_Decimal_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosemite_Decimal_System

xcskier56 5y ago

This is so true. The other day I spent a good 10 minutes trying to upgrade a gem to > 2.3 when it was already at 2.11

Hamuko 5y ago

I find normal version numbers pretty simple as a software developer (general population seemed to be buffled by how macOS 10.9 could ever be followed by macOS 10.10) but I always get confused when I see Cyberpunk 2077's version numbers that go 1.22 → 1.23 → 1.3 → 1.31. It just doesn't compute that you go from minor version 23 to minor version 3.

dylan604 5y ago

Yes, but #.#.# is not a valid number/decimal/monetary notation. You cannot enter that number into a calculator, and I'm not sure you'd even be able to use that as a valid numerical value in any programming language. For anyone getting confused that 0.1 == 0.10, then how is that the writer's fault? There are formatting requirements that require a significant digit number of places (scientific notation as an example). I don't know that actually applies to bank marketing material, but it could be a style guide type of thing to keep numbers formatted the same. Either way, it does not change the value of the number. If you misread it, it is not the company's fault. They have provided factual information.

bmitc 5y ago
> If you misread it, it is not the company's fault. They have provided factual information. That’s really not a fair argument given advertising and marketing theory and schemes. Who knows about this particular case since we don’t know if the 0.10% needed to be compared to other rates like 0.08%, where the formatting would maybe make more sense. But it’s not beyond imagination that someone could try to hook a customer with numbers. It’s done all the time with the whole $8.99 thing.
- dylan604 5y ago
  That's funny timing, as I just mentioned the other day on here that the $.99 vs $1.00 thing was a marketing tactic. However, someone countered that it is a remnant from the old days of forcing the clerk to ring out the customer at the register to make correct change. This was to help avoid the temptation of pocketing the exact dollar amount. A pricing practice that has essentially just stuck around, and possibly repurposed???? Either way, I've learned basic maths. .1 == .10. I would be willing to guess that the average public would not think that .10 > .1, and that this whole confusion is really only for developers that have started using decimal notation in versions where .10 > .1 is true.
  - hermitdev 5y ago
    As an engineer, the trailing 0 is significant: it indicates with what precision it was rounded to. [0.5, .15) could become .1, with 1 significant digit, but not .10 with 2 significant digits. Doubtful it matters in this case, but that extra zero can convey extra meaning.

kelp 5y ago

For this reason I tend to prefer the way OpenBSD versions their releases. They just did 6.9 and the next one will be 7.0. But this really only works over long periods of time because they only do two releases a year. It took me a bit to get my head around Linux kernel versioning where the 2nd digit just goes up until they feel like it's time for a new first digit version.

jobigoud 5y ago
In that case the change of major version loses its meaning. They could use 69 and 70.

cardiffspaceman 5y ago

Rock climbing's ratings with Yosemite Decimal System have 5.10 harder than 5.9 [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosemite_Decimal_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosemite_Decimal_System