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.

    • 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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

      • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        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.

        • Wrufieotnak@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

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

          Twice as short != twice shorter

          And the second version is just wrong.

        • 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          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.