I'm fully aware this is pedantic, but you can't save 10x. You can pay 1/10. You can save 90%. Your previous costs could have been 10x your current costs. But 10x is more by definition, not less. You can't save it.
> x literally means multiply
And some use the dot operator or even 2(3) or (2)(3). When programming, we tend to use *.
I agree that it's a suboptimal and click baity way to phrase it though...
Example: He was saving $10 every month before the change. Then he switched and now he is saving 10 x $10, ie $100 every month.
But that's not the case here, right? And that's why the parent post is correct.
Saved 10x would imply there was an amount being saved that they multipled.
Clarity of expression is a superpower
I don’t feel it’s pedantic at all.
Being pedantic about words means you think effective communication is somehow wrong. Be precise, don’t be pedantic.
Your example them was a weasel worded advert that uses meaningless terminology to make something sound big (savings in this case).
People don't use that expression.
What is saving? _Spending less_, that's all. Saving generates no income, it makes you go broke slower.
Independent of the price or the product, you can never save more than factor 1.0 (or 100%).
Wasn't there a guy on TV who wanted to make prices go down 1500%? Same BS, different flavor.
Cost of item = 10
First discounted cost of item = 9
=> First saving = 1
Second discounted cost of item = 6
=> Second saving = 4
Second saving is 4x first saving.
(Edit - formatting)Edit: Thinking about this some more: You could say you are saving 9x [of the new cost], and it would be a correct statement. I believe the error is assuming the reference frame is the previous cost vs the new cost, but since it is not specified, it could be either.
Yes you can, because speed has units of inverse time and latency has units of time. So it could be correct to say that cutting latency to 1/10 of its original value is equivalent to making it 10x the original speed - that's how inverses work.
Savings are not, to my knowledge, measured in units of inverse dollars.
The author expressed the thought in a valid way because we understood their words, but they did not communicate it well because we are confused about their understanding of those ideas.