4 ms·

>Do they even understand the field that they are covering? They are doing a programmatic conversion of 1000km to miles, because most Americans don't have a clu

>Do they even understand the field that they are covering? They are doing a programmatic conversion of 1000km to miles, because most Americans don't have a clue about the metric system. What's the problem? >What else should I not trust in their publication? I'd love to hear about what you think is "untrustworthy" about converting from kilometres to miles so the audience can visualize the distance. 1000 km = 621 miles, this is a fact.

kccqzy 2y ago
The problem is that the editor (and you probably) didn't understand the idea of significant figures.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jakewins 2y ago
  Respectfully the argument you’re responding to is clearly just saying: the level of outrage feigned here over translating the mileage specs and not rounding is out of proportion. Continuing the thread with rude pedantry is not adding anything useful to the conversation.
- Larrikin 2y ago
  I think you don't understand significant figures if you think they matter in a press announcement.
  - jameshart 2y ago
    There is a huge difference between the claim of ‘this battery technology will allow a range of up to about 600 miles’ and ‘this battery technology will allow a range of up to 621 miles’ The former invites you to imagine that the actual Mileage will vary depending on other factors in the car design. The latter suggests some inherent theoretical limit caused by this technology that makes 621 miles into an absolute best case range. Which of these two do you think the original author of the claim was trying to communicate?
- imtringued 2y ago
  Ok it has a range of six hectomiles. Happy?
Swizec 2y ago
> I'd love to hear about what you think is "untrustworthy" about converting from kilometres to miles so the audience can visualize the distance. 1000 km = 621 miles, this is a fact. 1000km is not an exact figure. It’s rounded, probably up. Somewhere between 900km and 1100km. Likely closer to 999km than 1099 because they’d want to publish the biggest number they can reasonably claim. So you can assume the real range is between 900km and 999km. The correct translation to miles would be “600mi”. Because 621 invents precision that wasn’t there in the original figure.
- FredPret 2y ago
  The same happens in the US->rest of world direction when you read about "approximately 16km" or "approximately 2.54cm".
- davoneus 2y ago
  What petty BS; it's a rounding error of a press release! If you want numerical precision, go read American Mathematical Society papers.
  - badpun 2y ago
    It’s not a rounding error.
- arghwhat 2y ago
  Converting 1000 km to 600 miles is always wrong. Assuming that 1000km is not an exact figure solely because its least significant digits are zero is also wrong, and making up a ±10% margin is very wrong. The correct thing to do would be to write the conversion as "1000 km (~621 miles)", so that the original value is not lost.

kccqzy 2y ago

The problem is that the editor (and you probably) didn't understand the idea of significant figures.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jakewins 2y ago
Respectfully the argument you’re responding to is clearly just saying: the level of outrage feigned here over translating the mileage specs and not rounding is out of proportion. Continuing the thread with rude pedantry is not adding anything useful to the conversation.
Larrikin 2y ago
I think you don't understand significant figures if you think they matter in a press announcement.
- jameshart 2y ago
  There is a huge difference between the claim of ‘this battery technology will allow a range of up to about 600 miles’ and ‘this battery technology will allow a range of up to 621 miles’ The former invites you to imagine that the actual Mileage will vary depending on other factors in the car design. The latter suggests some inherent theoretical limit caused by this technology that makes 621 miles into an absolute best case range. Which of these two do you think the original author of the claim was trying to communicate?
imtringued 2y ago
Ok it has a range of six hectomiles. Happy?

Swizec 2y ago

> I'd love to hear about what you think is "untrustworthy" about converting from kilometres to miles so the audience can visualize the distance. 1000 km = 621 miles, this is a fact. 1000km is not an exact figure. It’s rounded, probably up. Somewhere between 900km and 1100km. Likely closer to 999km than 1099 because they’d want to publish the biggest number they can reasonably claim. So you can assume the real range is between 900km and 999km. The correct translation to miles would be “600mi”. Because 621 invents precision that wasn’t there in the original figure.

FredPret 2y ago
The same happens in the US->rest of world direction when you read about "approximately 16km" or "approximately 2.54cm".
davoneus 2y ago
What petty BS; it's a rounding error of a press release! If you want numerical precision, go read American Mathematical Society papers.
- badpun 2y ago
  It’s not a rounding error.
arghwhat 2y ago
Converting 1000 km to 600 miles is always wrong. Assuming that 1000km is not an exact figure solely because its least significant digits are zero is also wrong, and making up a ±10% margin is very wrong. The correct thing to do would be to write the conversion as "1000 km (~621 miles)", so that the original value is not lost.