96
€2.99 or €3.49? Proton VPN's Pricing Test Exposed (thecybersecguru.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/50434194

Proton VPN's pricing page exposed an ab-test identifier linked to two VPN Plus prices: €2.99/month (70% off) and €3.49/month (65% off). Repeated testing produced B → A → B → A → B, with the variant matching the rendered price each time. €12 difference over 24 months.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 29 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

This article could have been several times shorter.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [+] -12 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I agree except you can't have something be "several times shorter". Yes, I know what you mean, but "several times" can only be longer. It's like saying "500% less". You can't do that. The best case scenario is that means "20% of the original" but arguably "500% less" would mean you take five times the original amount and subtract it from the original, leaving you with negative 4 times the amount, not twenty percent.

    Anyway. This is just a light-hearted pedantic pseudo-rant, although I also do stand by the truth of what I'm saying. But I'm not intending corrections, just being silly about a pet peeve of mine. heh

    hmm... that article might be better off being -4 times its original length, come to that. heh

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    I disagree. Twice as short would be half the length if you asked me (same as twice as long, in a glass half empty, half full situation).

    In a similar but different example, if you have a 1000 word essay and you cut it to 500 words, you could make it twice as short again by cutting it to 250 words.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    That's because you wrote something different than the other comment.

    Twice as short != twice shorter

    And the second version is just wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I don't understand twice shorter -- how would you use it in context?

    I think my example stands

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    OK, either I don't understand you or you don't understand me, because that's what I'm also saying?

    Your example "twice as short" works.

    The original comment wasn't about your example.

    The original comment was "several times shorter".

    As you used twice in place of several times, I also put twice in there to make the difference to yours more obvious.

    Twice shorter isnt the same as twice as short. You talked in your first comment about something different than the other comments talked about. That is what I wanted to express.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    Ah thanks for spelling it out for me. English isn't my mother tongue, so for me both several times shorter and twice shorter felt somehow wrong. So I thought they were equally wrong. Thanks for explaining!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Language is generally workable if it communicates the intended message. In that sense, I acknowledge that it is generally understood what something means, but not always.

    However, it is semantic gibberish, and fuck anyone who supports that gibberish.

    But yes, it's fine enough in the same way that when someone says "could of" we know they meant "could've" or "could have". It doesn't make it correct. And it is still grating.

    Two asshats disagreed with my comment above enough to downvote. This is also grating because it means they actively support WRONG. And it is WRONG.

    It's fine, but it is irritating when people are willfully ignorant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •