I assume your comment is very tongue-in-cheek, in which case it was a fun read. What follows is my response if it isn’t.
Well, the top-level comment said μg, which was the basis of my questioning the second-level comment. Not sure where your millicentigrams came from.
Also, your math is weird. You wouldn’t multiply your exponents like that, you’d add them. As noted at the top, though, I suspect your whole comment is in jest and the math is meant to be the giveaway aimed at the literal-minded like me.
I know you wouldn’t multiply exponents that way unless it’s an exponent of an exponent. In any case, it’s the only way I can make the term “mcg” actually make sense.
Think of it as giving someone the benefit of the doubt to the point of absurdity.
Are you using “mig” as milligram or microgram? For that to be a term you’d use, I assume you recognize you’re responding to a quantity in micrograms.
Micrograms? You mean millicentigrams, commonly abbreviated as mcg by people who avoid proper SI- symbols?
Since milli means 1/10^3 and centi means 1/10^2, I propose millicenti means 1/10^(3*2) or 1/10^6.
Or the extended keycode-averse could just use ug.
I assume your comment is very tongue-in-cheek, in which case it was a fun read. What follows is my response if it isn’t.
Well, the top-level comment said μg, which was the basis of my questioning the second-level comment. Not sure where your millicentigrams came from.
Also, your math is weird. You wouldn’t multiply your exponents like that, you’d add them. As noted at the top, though, I suspect your whole comment is in jest and the math is meant to be the giveaway aimed at the literal-minded like me.
I know you wouldn’t multiply exponents that way unless it’s an exponent of an exponent. In any case, it’s the only way I can make the term “mcg” actually make sense.
Think of it as giving someone the benefit of the doubt to the point of absurdity.