Hacker News Reader

Comment by cdubzzz | Hacker News Reader

Eh, I think it's debatable and not pedantic. I literally clicked on the link because I inferred the headline to mean that Pepsi made a typo that somehow cost them $32B.

And re: your example, I would not call that a "$200MM typo", I would call it a typo. If I intended to write a check for $200 and later when it was cashed found I had accidentally wrote it for $220, I would call that a $20 typo.

View on HN

> If I intended to write a check for $200 and later when it was cashed found I had accidentally wrote it for $220, I would call that a $20 typo.

So my example was a "$199,999,800 typo"? Can't we just round up?

The relevant difference between our examples is not the amount. It's that my example check was cashed and therefore cost me $20. Your example check bounced and didn't cost you anything. If that bounce caused your bank to charge you a $10 fee, I'd call it a $10 typo.

It was a $32B typo that only cost them $20M

I inferred the headline to mean what it actually did, and was surprised to find comments here like yours. I would even argue that is the true literal meaning.

The fact that it caused riots was especially a giveaway. If Pepsi had actually paid out after making their mistake, why would there be riots? Yes I can imagine situations (e.g. they only paid out after there were deadly riots) but it still leads you to the right interpretation.

BTW I agree that your example is a $20 typo, but that seems unrelated. I would still call it a $20 typo if you then didn't cash in that cheque.

Taken a whole, I can see what you mean about the article title. I think this is a just bad title, but titles are hard (:

> I would still call it a $20 typo if you then didn't cash in that cheque.

Interesting. To me calling something a "$XX [typo|mistake|error|etc.]" means that the typo/error/mistake resulted in a loss of $XX. Any other way to read that feels confusing.

How's "Pepsi's mistake cost innocent lives by an exploding grenade"? Technically correct, but sounds even more horrendous and catastrophic, while technically 100% correct. If your argument is that the title is trying to be click-baity they could've probably done a lot worse even while staying with the strict facts. I really don't think the author meant to clickbait.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com