On 22 December 2011 05:54, Daniel Kalchev <daniel_at_digsys.bg> wrote: > > > On 22.12.11 00:33, Igor Mozolevsky wrote: >> >> Using the same argument one can say that Ferrari F430 vs Toyota Prius is a >> meaningless comparison because the under-the-hood equipment is different. > > Of course, it is meaningless, the Ferrari will lose big time in the fuel > consumption comparison! I believe it will also lose the price comparison as > well. Not to speak the availability comparison. That's an oxymoron, right? The comparison cannot be meaningless---the reality is F430 will indeed use up more fuel than Prius. If a benchmark demonstrates a true reality, how can that benchmark be possibly meaningless??? Same benchmark might be irrelevant to someone who wants to know how fast they can get from A to B, but irrelevant is not a synonym for meaningless! > You say that comparison is meaningless, yet you intend to compare those two > cars? I didn't say that at all, I was demonstrating fallacy of the argument that the comparisons were meaningless. > Any 'benchmark' has a goal. You first define the goal and then measure how > different contenders achieve it. Reaching the goal may have several > measurable metrics, that you will use to later declare the winner in each. > Besides, you need to define a baseline and be aware of what theoretical > max/min values are possible. Treating a benchmark as a binary win/lose is rather naive, it's not a competition, and (I hope) no serious person ever does that. A proper benchmark shows true strength and weaknesses so than a well-informed intelligent decision can be taken by an individual according to that individual's needs. The caveat, of course, is making your methodology clear and methods repeatable! Cheers, -- Igor M.Received on Thu Dec 22 2011 - 08:57:37 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:22 UTC