sem

@sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone · Joined ⁨Jun⁩ ⁨2024⁩

Replying to @⁨Wrufieotnak@feddit.org⁩

I don’t think we understand each other.

To me, several times shorter makes perfect sense, and twice as short is a special case, where it is two times as short. Thus, several times shorter includes:

  • two times shorter == twice as short
  • 1.5 times shorter == 1.5 times as short
  • five times shorter == five times as short
  • several times shorter == several times as short (the “as short” construction sounds clunky to me here in this case)

As i write these out, i realize what you were trying to say: X times shorter is equivalent to X times as short for me, so equivalent that I didn’t realize when I was using one or the other.

You are saying that for some people, the “X times shorter” construction doesn’t sound natural. I can respect that, but it doesn’t seem like a part of mainstream English to me at least.

“Twice shorter” isn’t what anyone is talking about. That isn’t how you combine the words, at least to me.

Replying to @⁨starman2112@sh.itjust.works⁩

I got this vibe from stuff you should know podcast once early on, but after i was mad at them for a while, I still listen, and they seem to do a better job now.

When you’re making edutainment for a general audience, there’s going to be some things that will seem obvious to experts, so i can’t really knock them for that.

But I can knock them for not doing their research and putting out wrong information, especially if they don’t retract it later.

Edit: this video is a knitter explaining it well. She doesn’t blame Hank either, but explains the reaction and the context: www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHpGoYlzmog

YouTubeWhy did SciShow’s knitting video spark frustration?by Wool Needles Hands