I had the same reaction to a weatherman referring to an 88F temperature as “twice” a 44F temperature (albeit somewhat mitigated because of my generally low expectations for TV weathermen).
I’m with you. This is sloppily written, to the point where it is meaningless.
If someone said to me: “The old processor ran at 56°C and the new one runs at a 46% higher temp.” I would have no idea what the new processor ran at. I could guess that they were referring to 56x1.46=82°C, but it would be a guess.
Unfortunately, there isn’t a useful way to express this, referring only to the temp, and your letter isn’t really much better. Far better would have been to suggest leaving that comparison out all together. Anyone bothering to reading reviews of Intel chips should be able to tell the difference between 56°C and 82°C.
Anyone else notice a problem with the bolded parts of these quotes?
That’s right… all of them are made up. Nobody said “twice as hot.” Nobody said “a 46% higher temp.” Obviously those would be misleading and/or nonsensical. But again… nobody said any of those things.
The review did give the two measurements and note that one was 46% higher than the other. The measurements in question were given as positive numbers of degrees celsius. What it means for the second to be 46% higher is that the second temperature is 46% farther above 0C. You may prefer to say the second temperature is 7.8% farther above absolute zero. Or 79% farther above room temperature (23C). But there is nothing horrifying about using 0C.
By all means, though, continue arguing against made up quotes.
Do you think that 3c is 300% hotter than 1c then? Do you think that’s a useful way to communicate the idea?
Precisely - I’m totally with the OP on this. Weathermen on the TV often say things like “Temperatures will reach 16ºC - that’s double the typical maximum of 8ºC at this time of year,” and so on.
How much hotter is 41ºF than 23ºF, as a percentage?
What about 5ºC compared with -5ºC? :dubious:
Your point is irrelevant, though. Temperature scales have arbitrary zero points (except for Kelvin), but RELATIONS of temperature have to have a non-arbitrary starting point. Yes, the NUMBER 82 is 46% higher than 56. Whoop de doo.
The TEMPERATURE 82C is NOT 46% higher than the temperature 56C. Period. If it were, the percentage increase would be the same for all equivalent conversions, and they are clearly not (it’s 35% higher in F and 7.8% higher in K, which also happens to be the actual percentage increase in temperature).
So, again…what are the measurements of? Temperature. Is one temperature 46% higher than the other? NO. Then the measurement is not 46% higher.
Presumably said journalist passed a science class in junior-high, but maybe not.
No, but nobody said that.
I guess we can’t compare net worths using percentages then, because net worth can be negative.
Even if, you know, the actual net worths are given and we can see with our (presumably functional) eyes that they are both positive.
Nobody said this. Nobody said it was 46% hotter, nobody said the temperature went up 46%. Period. If it said something different it would mean something different… so what?
I don’t care what units you use. 82C is, and will always be, 46% farther above 0C than 56C is, even if you convert all of them. Maybe it would have been more useful to say 82C is 79% farther above 23C than 56C is. But then the number would have been even bigger, oh no!
The point is, there is no need to use absolute zero there, and in any case the data itself was given, so there is no question what it meant.
The OP is absolutely right. Anyone who thinks that 82C is 46% hotter than 56C shouldn’t be allowed to use percentages. There ought to be a law!
Okay, for those who aren’t seeing the problem.
Let’s use the figures from the OP. The old processor ran at 56C. The new processor ran at 82C. The difference in temperatures is twenty-six degrees. And the reviewer said the heat measurement was 46% higher with the new processor. And some people say that percentage is an accurate and meaningful measure.
Suppose the temperature outside yesterday was -10C. Today it’s 16C. (We have really freaky weather around these parts.) By what percentage did the temperature increase?
I agree with the OP.
I once had a highly micromanaged job that required logging into the computer system at my exact start time, down to the second. It was so important to the business model that this hyper punctuality could easily be the difference between $8/HR and $20/HR+
They measured this punctuality as… You guessed it… A percentage. Ridiculous and inappropriate, sure, but if you were going to be below about 99.8% punctual you’d save a lot of money by just calling in.
I agree with the OP. I would totally have a problem with that statement.
But then again, my training is in physics, so there’s that.
If you want to get mad at anyone, get mad at yourself. You are the one engaged in pedantry.
You keep claiming the article doesn’t say what people are taking it to say. But you are wrong. You can, by pedantic reading, get it to say what you want. But that isn’t how most people would interpret it, so that’s not what it means. The article is misleading.
Yes, you can make it work if you set the zero point at 0 degrees Celcius. You are technically correct. Thing is, there is absolutely no reason to set it at 0 degrees Celcius. It’s as if I say that $2200 is twice as much as $2100 because I set the zero point at $2000. When people do this (often in graphs), the result is generally regarded as misleading.
You are right that the numbers are actually that percentage from each other. But that’s a completely meaningless statement. It tells you absolutely nothing. And so it’s absolutely NOT how percentages are usually used. Since it doesn’t specify that it’s being unusual, people expect the usual, and thus people will be misled.
Do you get the theme here? The use of the percentage is misleading. A percentage exists to help people compare two quantities when they can’t grasp them from the numbers alone. The whole point of including a percentage is to replace the actual numbers in someone’s head. But doing so here causes them to have the wrong idead of what those numbers are. And that is what bugs people.
Honestly, I find it sad that so many people think the OP was being pedantic. He was attempting to alleviate a misunderstanding. Yes, he could have said it in a better way that would not instantly make the average uninformed person he’s being a geek for geekiness sake, but surely people who can actually understand what is being said should get that he’s not being pedantic. Correct him on the presentation, not the content.