4 ms·

>The reduction in area under the curve (the orange part) represents the loss of positive outcomes. The total loss is small, but it’s concentrated in the tail of

>The reduction in area under the curve (the orange part) represents the loss of positive outcomes. The total loss is small, but it’s concentrated in the tail of the curve where the extreme successes happen. This is upside decay and it’s catastrophic. "Loss of positive outcomes" is the definition. That is, rare but really good outcomes become rarer. The diagram at the beginning of the article illustrates it pretty clearly to me. I had never heard of upside decay before this article, and as soon as I saw the diagram I understood the meaning (but not the cause).

abathur 5y ago
Yes--I exaggerated. The diagram clearly depicts a shaded fraction of the right-tail of a normal distribution. The text asserts: - this shaded fraction represents the loss of positive outcomes (and implies that there are real-world conditions that can lead to this loss) - this loss of outcomes is upside decay - upside decay catastrophic So, sure. It's a definition in the sense that anyone can highlight a distribution, assert that part of it could go missing, assert a name for such a missing portion, and assert that it would be a catastrophe if whatever the shaded area represents went missing. But this definition has nothing to do with the article's topic. You can s/upside decay/-8 luck/ without having much impact on what the first ~2/3 mean. Tautological highlights on graphs of normal distributions surely aren't the kind of catastrophe the definition means. The map is not the territory. The definition has multiple dangling references, and has little bearing on the topic until the author starts resolving them.
- aidenn0 5y ago
  > But this definition has nothing to do with the article's topic. You can s/upside decay/-8 luck/ without having much impact on what the first ~2/3 mean. Given that the very first appearance of the term "Upside decay" says "an organization doesn’t get any lucky breaks." I think the author would agree with you on this point. I don't see how this is a criticism; until the author finishes their explanation, the explanation is incomplete?
  - skmurphy 5y ago
    I think his argument is that weak ties (counter-parties you have some connection with but not a deep one) are not inclined to punish you (increasing your bad luck) as much as are disinclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. I think luck includes "good luck" and "bad luck." His argument is that nonvirtuous behavior by an organization (or the ruling group of a nation) leads to fewer lucky breaks and less upside. He is not suggesting your bad luck increases so I don't think the substitution holds.

abathur 5y ago

Yes--I exaggerated. The diagram clearly depicts a shaded fraction of the right-tail of a normal distribution. The text asserts: - this shaded fraction represents the loss of positive outcomes (and implies that there are real-world conditions that can lead to this loss) - this loss of outcomes is upside decay - upside decay catastrophic So, sure. It's a definition in the sense that anyone can highlight a distribution, assert that part of it could go missing, assert a name for such a missing portion, and assert that it would be a catastrophe if whatever the shaded area represents went missing. But this definition has nothing to do with the article's topic. You can s/upside decay/-8 luck/ without having much impact on what the first ~2/3 mean. Tautological highlights on graphs of normal distributions surely aren't the kind of catastrophe the definition means. The map is not the territory. The definition has multiple dangling references, and has little bearing on the topic until the author starts resolving them.

aidenn0 5y ago
> But this definition has nothing to do with the article's topic. You can s/upside decay/-8 luck/ without having much impact on what the first ~2/3 mean. Given that the very first appearance of the term "Upside decay" says "an organization doesn’t get any lucky breaks." I think the author would agree with you on this point. I don't see how this is a criticism; until the author finishes their explanation, the explanation is incomplete?
- skmurphy 5y ago
  I think his argument is that weak ties (counter-parties you have some connection with but not a deep one) are not inclined to punish you (increasing your bad luck) as much as are disinclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. I think luck includes "good luck" and "bad luck." His argument is that nonvirtuous behavior by an organization (or the ruling group of a nation) leads to fewer lucky breaks and less upside. He is not suggesting your bad luck increases so I don't think the substitution holds.