Hacker News Reader

Comment by wmil | Hacker News Reader

> 70 percent more tomatoes per 1,000 gallons of water

Am I reading this wrong? The "1000 gallons" seems superfluous since we're already talking about percentages. Replace it with "gallon of water" or even "amount of water" and the 70% doesn't change.

View on HN

Because "70 percent more tomatoes per unit of water" is too abstract for most people.

"70 percent more tomatoes for a given amount of water." Or even better "Decreased tomato water requirements by 41%" but that doesn't sound as impressive.

Well, its almost half.

"Nearly halved tomato water requirements" sounds fairly impressive to me.

I think it is kind of a standard measure when talking large scale water usage. He's a farmer. It is probably habit to speak of water in those terms. His mental space is different from someone dealing with household usage.

If the measurement was originally per 1000 gallons it makes sense to preserve the unit. It may be rounded from acre-foot/year, which is 893 gallons/day.

Yes, it's mathematically superfluous. Real human communication is an evolved trait which often is logically or mathematically weird. Ask a person how many brownies to bake for a party and they might say "at least 10 to 20." The "to 20" is mathematically without meaning, but it seems to communicate something.

Is "to 20" superfluous? If they had said "at least 10" that leaves you open to baking a thousand. The "to 20" caps the possible range and makes the statement more confined.

I don't believe that it does cap the range. I see it as: At least x (where x = 10-20). X is the minimum, and you can always exceed it, whether it is a single value or a range.

If you bake 100 brownies, you satisfy the requirement of baking at least 10 brownies, as well as the requirement of baking at least 10 to 20 brownies.

"The lower bound is estimated to be between 10 and 20"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com