5 ms·
I'm fully aware this is pedantic, but you can't save 10x. You can pay 1/10. You can save 90%. Your previous costs could have been 10x your current costs. But 10
by jaredhallen 11mo ago
I'm fully aware this is pedantic, but you can't save 10x. You can pay 1/10. You can save 90%. Your previous costs could have been 10x your current costs. But 10x is more by definition, not less. You can't save it.
- lblack00 11mo agoColloquially, differences in powers of 10 would be better stated as differences of orders of magnitude.
- PantaloonFlames 11mo ago+1 words matter Clarity of expression is a superpower I don’t feel it’s pedantic at all.
- big_maybe 11mo agoPeople commonly use this expression in everyday conversation, such as, "you could save 10 times as much if you would just shop at Costco." So I agree with OP, their comment is correct but pedantic.
- happymellon 11mo ago> People commonly Your example them was a weasel worded advert that uses meaningless terminology to make something sound big (savings in this case). People don't use that expression.
- baq 11mo agoCommunication is a superpower. You say something and the other person understands. Being pedantic about words means you think effective communication is somehow wrong. Be precise, don’t be pedantic.
- dabockster 11mo agoApples and oranges, tbh.
- veqq 11mo agoIn English, x or time(s) after a number marks a "unit" used by various verbs. A 10x increase. Increase by 10x. Go up 10x. Some of these verbs are negative like decrease or save. "Save 10x" is the same as "divide by 10". Four times less, 5 times smaller etc. are long attested.
- adammarples 11mo agoNo, x literally means multiply. It doesn't somehow also mean divide. They should use the percent sign, it's what it is for. 10x my costs means 10 x mycost, it's literally an equation
- veqq 11mo agoIt's just inversion, like 2 to the power of 2 or 2 to the power of negative 2. These negative words inverse it just the same. You may dislike it, but millions of people have spoken this way for a long time. > x literally means multiply And some use the dot operator or even 2(3) or (2)(3). When programming, we tend to use *.
- adammarples 11mo agoNobody says times to mean divide. The word "negative" is what is doing the inversion for you in your example.
- jaredhallen 11mo agoAgree to disagree.
- ffsm8 11mo agoIt's basically multiplication with fractions, just like you get 1/4 from 1/2 * 1/2, which is once again a multiplication that turns into division I agree that it's a suboptimal and click baity way to phrase it though...
- deleted 11mo ago
- immibis 11mo agoConsider it as getting 10x the resources for the same price - that is, the resource-to-price ratio is 10x. Except you don't need 10x the resources so you choose to get 1x the resources for 0.1x the price instead.
- jaredhallen 11mo agoSure. Getting 10x the resources for the same price is another valid way to express the thought. Saving 10x isn't, though.
- fuzzy_biscuit 11mo agoI think you would be more accurate to say 'communicate the thought' as opposed to 'express the thought'. Communication carries the explicit desire to have an idea be shared. Expression carries no shared understanding and is personal. The author expressed the thought in a valid way because we understood their words, but they did not communicate it well because we are confused about their understanding of those ideas.
- gerdesj 11mo agoCost of item = 10 First discounted cost of item = 9 => First saving = 1 Second discounted cost of item = 6 => Second saving = 4 Second saving is 4x first saving. (Edit - formatting)
- jaredhallen 11mo agoBut that's 4x the savings compared to another saving. I suppose you've upped the pedantry and are technically correct, but that's a pretty narrow use case and not the one used in the article.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- jand 11mo agoThis becomes much clearer with a balance sheet in front of you. What is saving? _Spending less_, that's all. Saving generates no income, it makes you go broke slower. Independent of the price or the product, you can never save more than factor 1.0 (or 100%). Wasn't there a guy on TV who wanted to make prices go down 1500%? Same BS, different flavor.
- arcastroe 11mo agohmm.. if you reduce latency from one second to a hundred milliseconds, could you celebrate that you've made it 10x faster, or would you have the same quibble there too? Edit: Thinking about this some more: You could say you are saving 9x [of the new cost], and it would be a correct statement. I believe the error is assuming the reference frame is the previous cost vs the new cost, but since it is not specified, it could be either.
- thedufer 11mo ago> if you reduce latency from one second to a hundred milliseconds, could you celebrate that you've made it 10x faster Yes you can, because speed has units of inverse time and latency has units of time. So it could be correct to say that cutting latency to 1/10 of its original value is equivalent to making it 10x the original speed - that's how inverses work. Savings are not, to my knowledge, measured in units of inverse dollars.
- rr808 11mo agoI could care less.
- abrookewood 11mo agoSo .... you DO care then? Or do you mean "I could NOT care less"?
- rr808 11mo agoYes, that is why I replied with this to a pendant. :)
- pityJuke 11mo agoOn orders of the late Queen: https://youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw https://youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw
- abrookewood 11mo agoThanks - that is perfect.
- tmtvl 11mo agoYou can save 10x, but you need to have an x first. So if you've got formula A which costs 500 EUR, and formula B which costs 480, you're saving 20 EUR. If formula C costs 300, you could save 200, which is 10x what you would save using B. But just as people don't understand when to use 'fewer' or misuse 'literally' to mean 'figuratively' (which is rather the opposite meaning of the word they use); words don't mean anything any more, it's all about the feelings man.