3 ms·
But that is the point of the graph - to show the ratio of history that has happened has happened recently. Or in other words, the point is not to show the growt
by yxhuvud 15y ago
But that is the point of the graph - to show the ratio of history that has happened has happened recently. Or in other words, the point is not to show the growth patterns, but to show the nominal value.
- _delirium 15y agoI think that's where it's wrong, though; imo, "history" is better identified with the percent change, not with the nominal value. If someone improved some technology by 10% in 1850, and someone else improved it by another 10% in 1950, I'd call those historically equivalent contributions.