> The article talks about 10 times the price. If that’s true the equivalent percent would be 1100%.
I think you've just proven OPs point. 10x is a 900% increase, or 1,000% of the original price, not 1,100%.
Using percentage for anything other than a fraction of something (i.e. <= 100%) is usually done for effect, often done incorrectly, and even if done "correctly", leads to exactly this kind of confusion.
I was a little surprise to read that they're using speech-to-text and text-to-speech rather than an end-to-end speech model. Won't that horrible latency? (I guess the old-person persona disguises it a little...)
> put an uncharismatic non white woman as the candidate
As a "white" man (no more white than native Americans are "red", Chinese are "yellow", or Africans are "black"), I take offence at the suggestion that skin color or gender should be a defining characteristic to determine who should be the US president (or anyone else in power).
Charisma is a different story, but boy, if Trump is the benchmark for what counts as having charisma, we're in even bigger trouble than I thought.
And yet the article has since been edited to remove both the sentence I quoted, and your rebuttal (whatever that was supposed to mean). Clearly they knew it was wrong. I'll take your downvote with pride.
I’m not sure if I’m reading your comment right but dang is a moderator and wasn’t justifying his comment, but saying that this post is fine. He wanted to clarify that him posting the previous post with the same link wasn’t a criticism but just for reference.
Edit: I appreciate my comment being hidden to reduce distraction for others, and to (selfishly) to prevent downvoting (not that I'm collecting MIPs or anything! <sweatsmile>)
Oh you're far from the only one who reads those links that way—people commonly (mis)interpret links to past threads as being an implicit reproach ("why did you post this? it was already posted years ago"), when the intended meaning is more "hey, if you like this, there's related interesting stuff over here".
I struggled for years to find the right language for presenting those links because nearly every wording seemed to provoke this misunderstanding. I eventually settled on simply saying "Related". That seems to minimize (but alas not eliminate) it. I often say "Related. Others?" which seems to work pretty well (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
It's still my intention to integrate this related-links business more into HN's UI, which could maybe help with this quite a bit.
I'll often call out either dupes (reposts w/in a year, often w/in days, hours, or minutes...) vs. prior discussions, and especially perennial favourites. For the latter I'll specifically note that reposts are in fact permitted and encouraged after a suitable period, linking guidelines and one of your own comments to that effect.
Where submissions have had recent discussion but not above HN's somewhat vague "significant discussion" threshold (I generally go by <20 comments), I'll also note that. Often it's because I'd recalled earlier submission and wasn't sure myself whether or not those were dupes.
Since other HN readers are also involved in flagging dupes, or boosting repeat submissions for stories under the threshold, communicating this clearly is useful. A point I've also emphasized in the past:
My own first comment on that thread my be buried dues to downvotes, it's the reply to the linked comment and read (prior to clarifying edits linking & citing guidelines):
If you're calling a submission a dupe, say so.
In this case, there's an 11-hour old submission, but at only 6 comments, it's well below the threshold I (a non-privileged HN participant) usually call for dupes, that being ~20 comments.
So no, this is not a dupe.
Since it's difficult to assess an author's intent on a vague or link-only comment, being explicit as to what the situation is is something I'd strongly encourage.
yes, or to put it another way, it's the first Tuesday of the month unless the first Tuesday is November 1st, then it's the second Tuesday, November 8th
pointing it out because it's always the first Tuesday unless that 1 out of 7 where you have to wait a week -1 for the first Monday.
I think the reasoning is something like "we need to have a full business day in November before we have an election, that will give us a chance to fix problems or something"... not sure if under the old county/shire system months made a difference or something.
Yes, obviously it's legal in England, or the coins wouldn't have been found, reported, and ultimately sold, as per the article. It's also legal in Ireland.
There are prohibitions and licensing requirements in both countries for search of heritage sites, national monuments, and other protected sites, and reporting requirements for unintentional "heritage" finds.
I think you've just proven OPs point. 10x is a 900% increase, or 1,000% of the original price, not 1,100%.
Using percentage for anything other than a fraction of something (i.e. <= 100%) is usually done for effect, often done incorrectly, and even if done "correctly", leads to exactly this kind of confusion.
reply