4 ms·
He’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 mat
by sshine 3y ago
He’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]