4 ms·
few is not > 3. Literally it's just >= 2, though I think >= 3 is the common definition. 15 is too high to be a "few" except in contexts of a few out of tens o
by usaar333 2y ago
few is not > 3. Literally it's just >= 2, though I think >= 3 is the common definition.
15 is too high to be a "few" except in contexts of a few out of tens of thousands of items.
Realistically I interpret this as 3-7 thousands of days (8 to 19 years), which is largely consensus prediction range anyway.
- rsynnott 2y agoWhile it's not really _wrong_ to describe two things as 'a few', as such, it's unusual and people don't really do it in standard English. That said, I think people are possibly overanalysing this very vague barely-even-a-claim just a little. Realistically, when a tech company makes a vague claim about what'll happen in 10 years, that should be given precisely zero weight; based on historical precedent you might as well ask a magic 8-ball.