4 ms·
They said 300%, not growth by 300% IMO I prefer the former ("growth factor") calculation to the "growth by" calculation as it's simpler, it's just [the_percent
by dheera 2y ago
They said 300%, not growth by 300%
IMO I prefer the former ("growth factor") calculation to the "growth by" calculation as it's simpler, it's just [the_percentage]/100 * current_value
in the other case it is (the_percentage + 100)/100 * current_value
which takes an extra CPU cycle of my brain
- swyx 2y ago[op here] i've just switched it to 200% bc its the smaller number, but i agree that was what i was thinking