3 ms·
> that’s just basic growth accounting And a monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors. This stuff is not obvious to everyone. The arbitrary numbe
by sshine 3y ago
> that’s just basic growth accounting
And a monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors.
This stuff is not obvious to everyone. The arbitrary numbers are called an example.
The point of the article is to say, when you experience a plateau and you begin to speculate why, it’s mathematically expectable.
- manmal 3y agoThis use of the term math irks me. Math exists within the bounds of its own rules, and often it explains the world well. Sometimes, math can be used to make predictions about the world. But to infer that such a prediction is valid „just because I can make the numbers line up“ is IMO too hand-wavy and maybe even pseudo scientific. I wouldn’t drag mathematical models into this so early in the process.
- sshine 3y agoHe’s expanding on how rates grow in proportion. It can hardly be controversial to call this math. But ok, it’s not “the mathematical reason” but rather “a mathematical explanation” - the math is a property of his explanation, and the reason is growth, churn and employee psychology; while well-explained mathematically, they aren’t math. Somehow this seems to be besides the point, being: here is a common reason for plateau’ing.
- magicalhippo 3y agoReminds me of our introductory course in math at uni. The lecturer was showing a concrete example of how to integrate using the technique we'd just learned. After a lengthy manipulation of the integral, he said "and then you can just plug this into a calculator and get an answer, but that's not really interesting so I'll stop here".
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- itiro 3y agoIs it common? The point is asserted at the top of the article, but no data is provided to back it.
- manmal 3y agoWhat I mean is this: Making some anecdotal observations that can be explained by a certain model, doesn't mean the real world follows this model. It might not even be a good approximation.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pc86 3y agoIt's okay to use specific examples to explain a general principle or to make your point more clearly. But when those examples are more-or-less made up, as they are here, you'd better: 1. Be clear that they're examples and not some fundamental, mathematical truth. 2. Use multiple examples with different numbers to show how things could look different, even if only slightly. The author does neither of these. #1 is violated in the title. It's not clear at all that the author is using these numbers as merely examples.
- tqi 3y agoIt's not obvious that when the number if new customers acquired = customers churned, growth flattens?