Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Climate change phobia (Score 1) 216

by reve_etrange (#49154197) Attached to: We Stopped At Two Nuclear Bombs; We Can Stop At Two Degrees.

are going to be seriously affected by climate change and overpopulation.

Define overpopulation. If you mean an actual insufficiency of key physical resources (i.e. food)...then we're nowhere close to the Earth's limit, and we wont be when population stabilizes around 10 billion mid-century, either. It doesn't count if there's not enough food only because some people wont stop eating meat or turning food into fuel.

Comment: Re:Psychology lesson (Score 1) 271

by reve_etrange (#49051319) Attached to: Peak Google: The Company's Time At the Top May Be Nearing Its End

As I ask in my revisited post: If this is not done to be manipulative why is the adjective "exponential" only used when discussing profits, growth, etc.. and not done for costs, losses, or anything negative?

What you aren't getting is that whether or not terms like "exponential" have marketing value is a completely different question from whether or not a particular curve matches an exponential model.

Yes, fancy terms invoking rapid, continued growth have marketing value (i.e. are manipulative). If they were claiming, say, factorial growth then it would be obvious that they were lying or performing some kind of trickery to get that result. Instead they're claiming exponential growth, which has the virtue of being a correct model for past growth and good marketing copy.

Now, you're going to point out that firms report annually. Yes, they report annually. If you take those annual figures and graph them you get an exponential curve.

Comment: Re:Exponential growth (Score 1) 271

by reve_etrange (#49051259) Attached to: Peak Google: The Company's Time At the Top May Be Nearing Its End

I don't think the article stated it correctly. The 20% "growth" number is volume, where dollar per click has been steadily decreasing. In other words, Google is having to sell more ads to make the same dollars. This is the trend that is scary for investors because Google's competition is doing better here.

+5 Informative, seriously. If this is true, it completely explains why investors would have been worried (since continued 20% revenue growth would actually be awesome).

Comment: Re:Soap Box time (revisited) (Score 1) 271

by reve_etrange (#49051203) Attached to: Peak Google: The Company's Time At the Top May Be Nearing Its End

If you believe this is not to be manipulative,

Whether or not it's manipulative is totally orthogonal to whether or not growth at a fixed percentage over any time period is "exponential" (it is, period).

The parent posted a graph of Google and Facebook revenues over 5 years. Irrespective of any marketing value of the term "exponential," the curves drawn in the graph are (mathematically) exponential in character. If you're going to keep arguing that these specific curves are not exponential - despite the evidence of your own eyes - then I don't know what to tell you.

Comment: Re:Soap Box time! (Score 1) 271

by reve_etrange (#49051113) Attached to: Peak Google: The Company's Time At the Top May Be Nearing Its End

So by your strange view, anything with a positive yield could be called "exponential".

Anything with a positive yield which is a proportion of the current value. In other words, growth is "exponential" if it is proportional to t^n. For a 1% rate savings account, the value is proportional to t^1.01.

10 to the minus 6th power mouthwashes = 1 Microscope

Working...