4 ms·
> Amdahl's law explains why this is wrong. Amdahl's law doesn't mean what you think it means; it specifically refutes your position. To spell it out: a 100% re
by timsally 12y ago
> Amdahl's law explains why this is wrong.
Amdahl's law doesn't mean what you think it means; it specifically refutes your position. To spell it out: a 100% reduction in 1.7% of the cost is irrelevant to the total cost despite the fact that 100% is a big number.
- AnthonyMouse 12y agoYour argument is that you spend time value equivalent of $2167/month reading the news, so the monetary cost of a subscription is inconsequential in comparison. The point of Amdahl's law is that a small percentage of a large percentage can be just as just as consequential as a large percentage of a small percentage. So because ~$2200/month is such a significant percentage of your total income, reducing it by 1.7% is not irrelevant. $8/week is $8/week regardless of whether it's a small percentage of a large number or a large percentage of a small number.