Live data from Hacker News

Orders of magnitude

gabrielweinberg.com

11–14 of 14 posts

Re: Orders of magnitude

#11

"When people say they're looking to grow by an order of magnitude they usually mean ten times." I think this gives "people" too much credit. In my experience when people say they're looking to grow by an order of magnitude, they don't know that has a very specific meaning and they're just talking about getting bigger by some vague undefined number that could be anything from about two times on up.

Not saying you're wrong, but in my experience I only hear this phrase from technical people, and my understanding is they always mean base 10. Which was surprising to me cause in my CS education I was basically taught to forget base 10 and only think in 2s).

I've heard it quite a bit from people who are exposed to technology regularly but not explicitly technical. For example, product managers that didn't come from the engineering side.

I don't even really blame them, because I'm sure they simply hear the phrase a few times from technical people without explicit explanation of meaning and then adopt it themselves to mean "any big growth" which is a fairly reasonable assumption contextually, prior to someone pointing out to them that it means something more specific.

FWIW, in my CS education (both at school and self-directed via books, system manuals and such) I was taught to worry about whatever base is relevant to my current data and level of abstraction to the machine. 2, 10, 16 and even 8 were the usual culprits, but certainly nobody tried to teach me to forget about the ones other than 2. I worry about base 2 far less than base 10 in my day to day code despite the fact that I'm old and know assembly (6502, 68k, x86, MIPS, ARM) and still do a lot of bit-twiddling.

Re: Orders of magnitude

#12
Tangent: One of my favorite classes in college was one that taught physics only at the level of order of magnitudes. It'd tackle questions like: Why is nuclear power more efficient than coal? How much more efficient? and then sought to answer those questions in terms of simple math and fundamental constants.

Considering problems/situations from an orders of magnitude point of view is an under appreciated approach IMO.

Of course the orders of magnitude argument get abused by marketing people (but what doesn't?). That aside, they're extremely valuable for personal or team understanding of the problems and goals.

Re: Orders of magnitude

#13
post #10

I've heard "10x" (pronounced "ten ex") very often and I think it's less confusing than "one order of magnitude" .

But it fails if you are talking about any changes greater than 1 order of magnitude. For instance, from the article: "we're still about one order of magnitude from making a measurable dent in the search market and two from a major one". The terminology of "orders of magnitude" lets you talk in terms of the logarithm of the value rather than the value itself, and for certain kinds of thinking this is useful. The termi…

This is exactly the same "trick" as plotting graphs on a logarithmic scale - it gives you a different point of view on the data which sometimes (but certainly not always) reveals useful insights.

I wonder if there are interesting scaling/growth/startup point of view changes that are equivalent to other data visualization transformations? Is there a growth-data version of changing from cartesian to polar coordinates perhaps?

Re: Orders of magnitude

#14
I liked the commenter on the article that suggested using fold as a unit of measure. Grow 2 fold, etc. That's how I think of things. Sometimes if you think about growing in orders of magnitude you end up with too high of an expectation. If you're just simply looking to double or triple, you're more likely to reach the mark, and even exceed it, which is probably better for morale.
Post reply on HN