3 ms·
> OK, but I am pretty used to standard English usage and my understanding is that vernacular usage of parallel - when referring to time - is that they start and
by meiraleal 2y ago
> OK, but I am pretty used to standard English usage and my understanding is that vernacular usage of parallel - when referring to time - is that they start and end at the same time
So what happens if one task is simpler and ends earlier? it needs to continue running to be parallel and wait for the other task to end together? Maybe I'm in the wrong here and would love to understand it but for me it doesn't make sense (English isn't my native language tho).
- bryanrasmussen 2y agoAfter discussing it on English stackexchange https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/625990/meaning-of-parallel-in-relation-to-time https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/625990/meaning-o... I have to conclude that my definition is probably too strict (based on other people's opinions as language is a shared construct) although I still think maybe I just noticed something about the usage that other people haven't - that is to say my natural feeling of usage in English is that parallel things start and end at the same time (on same time scale - not assuming millisecond accuracy here) otherwise if not we would say that the first reign of Napoleon and the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson were in parallel to each other which to me at least seems absurd - they overlapped each other or were contemporaneous - but not parallel. This however just seems to be my own feeling that nobody else shares, which I find strange, I guess it's one of those how do I know the color orange is the same for you as it is for me things - only in this case it turns out the color orange totally isn't the same for the two of us.