4 ms·

I like the chart, but it's exactly what the article indicated, no? Article indicated It went up to 3 times the price and is now down to pre rocket prices. Char

I like the chart, but it's exactly what the article indicated, no? Article indicated It went up to 3 times the price and is now down to pre rocket prices. Charts seem to agree?

da_chicken 5y ago
Because sometimes "skyrocketing" means going 1% over the average annual high, or "cratering" going 2% below widely published analyst forecasting. In other words, the media is often radically hyperbolic to get clicks and ad views. So much so that when they use the same adjectives correctly they don't carry any weight anymore. They're the boy who cried wolf.
- arthurcolle 5y ago
  Average annual high (I'm assuming you're using the stock price daily high from a multi-year set of highs from its daily OHLC bars as the 'high' here) is a poor metric to evaluate whether or not a company is doing well. Low beta stocks usually don't really outperform so I mean you need to just optimize for low correlation, high relative outperformance vs. a sector wide index or something. I just don't think the random numbers you asserted are real at all - this would be something that one would need to test. Anyone getting their 'market moving news' from BusinessInsider/financial news sites is doing it wrong.
  - da_chicken 5y ago
    The entire point was that the metrics I chose were bad. Furthermore they were such minor differences that even if they weren't bad they still wouldn't be relevant. They were intended to be comically useless. It means that the hypothetical author of the article didn't have any idea what they're reporting, which is exactly what I was trying to express. The authors rely on the readers' ignorance and the way many people reflexively accept numeric data as true, pertinent, and sufficient evidence of any claim.
    - arthurcolle 5y ago
      Sorry about that - just saw the article and immediately started hyperventilating/wanted to vent as a child comment with someone that also seemed to 'get it' haha... cheers
scottLobster 5y ago
I wouldn't define "returning to historic norms" as "cratering". Would you define a plane landing smoothly on a runway, even after a steep dive, as "cratering" the runway?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- NikolaNovak 5y ago
  I guess it depends but to me cratering is more about slope of the curve than its final destination. So I can see a plane barreling or diving or catering down, before pulling up on the runway...

I like the chart, but it's exactly what the article indicated, no? Article indicated It went up to 3 times the price and is now down to pre rocket prices. Charts seem to agree?

da_chicken 5y ago

Because sometimes "skyrocketing" means going 1% over the average annual high, or "cratering" going 2% below widely published analyst forecasting. In other words, the media is often radically hyperbolic to get clicks and ad views. So much so that when they use the same adjectives correctly they don't carry any weight anymore. They're the boy who cried wolf.

arthurcolle 5y ago
Average annual high (I'm assuming you're using the stock price daily high from a multi-year set of highs from its daily OHLC bars as the 'high' here) is a poor metric to evaluate whether or not a company is doing well. Low beta stocks usually don't really outperform so I mean you need to just optimize for low correlation, high relative outperformance vs. a sector wide index or something. I just don't think the random numbers you asserted are real at all - this would be something that one would need to test. Anyone getting their 'market moving news' from BusinessInsider/financial news sites is doing it wrong.
- da_chicken 5y ago
  The entire point was that the metrics I chose were bad. Furthermore they were such minor differences that even if they weren't bad they still wouldn't be relevant. They were intended to be comically useless. It means that the hypothetical author of the article didn't have any idea what they're reporting, which is exactly what I was trying to express. The authors rely on the readers' ignorance and the way many people reflexively accept numeric data as true, pertinent, and sufficient evidence of any claim.
  - arthurcolle 5y ago
    Sorry about that - just saw the article and immediately started hyperventilating/wanted to vent as a child comment with someone that also seemed to 'get it' haha... cheers

scottLobster 5y ago

I wouldn't define "returning to historic norms" as "cratering". Would you define a plane landing smoothly on a runway, even after a steep dive, as "cratering" the runway?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
NikolaNovak 5y ago
I guess it depends but to me cratering is more about slope of the curve than its final destination. So I can see a plane barreling or diving or catering down, before pulling up on the runway...