
A Word Use That Doesn't Add Up - gnicholas
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/opinion/exponential-language-math.html
======
tofof
The NYT is right; 'exponentially' is widely misused.

The font-rendering article on today's HN front page [1] is guilty of it, for
example: "There is a pixel or less of extra space between kerning pairs and
the problem grows exponentially when letter-spacing values are fiddled with".
No, it doesn't. There is no exponential growth in the size of the extra space.

1:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19312404](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19312404)

~~~
SilasX
I don't see a problem with metaphorical overstatement (e.g. "he was bleeding
all over the floor"), especially in casual usage. The real problem would be if
they insisted on claiming it's "literally exponential" ... except, of course,
everyone insists on breaking that API too, because they're too lazy to come up
with a good intensifier.

As for the example you've cited, I think you're strawmanning it -- it's
claiming that the _problem_ grows exponentially, which could be true, or close
enough, if the missing pixel required you to add custom behavior for all
possible combinations of a parameter's value that you didn't even have to
worry about before.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Well, until you start using literally as a metaphorical overstatement too. I
literally died when I read that. :)

~~~
SilasX
That's what I mean with the part after the "...".

------
roywiggins
Nobody tell him the original meaning of "decimate."

~~~
projektfu
I was thinking about that one, and while it can mean destroying one tenth as
the Romans said it, it also seems like it could mean destroying all but one
tenth, linguistically speaking.

------
hirundo
Think of accepting misused exponentiallys, decimateds, literallys, etc., as
obedience to Postel's Law: Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in
what you send. Stretch your brain to comprehend around malapropisms while
striving to avoid them yourself.

Of course if one of the things that you comprehend is that the speaker is not
well spoken there's no need to discard that datum.

------
SilasX
Interesting case where, on HN, I used "exponential", intending its technical
meaning as a critical part of my point, and was accused of using the lay
meaning (see last response):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13869092](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13869092)

------
gumby
There's been quantum growth in the use of "exponential"!

(that's another one that grates on me). I don't know who suffers more:
physicists, mathematicians, or classicists.

~~~
maccio92
Then you'll love the new "quantum" blockchain database AWS now offers (yes
that's real)

------
Edmond
I think this is just a variation of Hypenitis as discussed here:

[https://blog.codesolvent.com/2016/10/hype-on-hacknews-and-
si...](https://blog.codesolvent.com/2016/10/hype-on-hacknews-and-silicon-
valley.html)

------
coldtea
All these pundits don't understand that language is its use (as any linguist
could tell, and dictionaries try to reflect, e.g. covering "literally" as
meaning "virtually", "nearly" too).

Language it's not the etymology of the words, or some canonical meaning set in
stone.

You can still make an error: it's when your use of a word is not a widely
understood use (and thus you fail to communicate what you meant) -- not when
your use doesn't match the etymology.

[http://existentialcomics.com/comic/268](http://existentialcomics.com/comic/268)

------
mcphage
"An order of magnitude" has a similar problem. Generally it's used to mean "a
lot bigger".

~~~
romwell
I always say that I assume binary when I say "order of magnitude" (but mean a
factor of 2) :)

------
cafard
As it happens, the first edition of Fowler's _Modern English Usage_ made the
same objection, though I think you have to look it up under "geometrical".

[But yes, it bugs me too.]

------
fdavison
Literally true

------
lucas_membrane
Sorry, didn't read because of the paywall, but the reckless use of this term
has bothered me for years, and some things to keep in mind when deciding what
is exponential: (1) When something is increasing exponentially, the rate of
increase increases in direct proportion to how much of it there is. So unless
there is some plausible explanation of growth driven by size, 'exponential' is
unlikely to be apt. (2) A true exponential curve increasing over time started
infinitely long ago with an infinitesimal magnitude, has grown by the same
constant percentage each millennium since, and will continue thus growing
forever to eventually exceed every finite limit. (3) The actual rapid growth
of anything significant we observe will apparently coincide with such a curve
for only a much shorter time. Thus, if you call attention to rapid exponential
growth of anything, you are almost certainly and most importantly describing a
process that must reach some limit sooner or later, stabilize or crash.

------
xorand
Why not "polynomial"? Can be quickly verified.

------
moonshinefe
I've noticed an exponential increase in NYTimes articles being massively
upvoted here lately with such garbage articles as this, "A New Luxury Retreat
Caters to Elderly Workers in Tech (Ages 30 and Up)" and "NSA has ended phone
monitoring based on an anonymous aide."

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like garbage.

~~~
orestes910
I'm glad someone else mentioned it. Thought it might just be my imagination.

~~~
radicaldreamer
hacker news is more mainstream than ever, so this is to be expected

~~~
ArrayList
HN is not really that mainstream at all.

NYT is a quality journalism outlet, obviously not every article is amazing,
but if enough people upvote it, it gets to the front page. It's not some big
conspiracy.

