3 ms·
> "growing from 780k to 2.3m repos on the HF Hub in the past year" Is this what caused the title to be "300%"? a. that's actually ~200% b. isn't growth, as d
by tiffanyh 2y ago
> "growing from 780k to 2.3m repos on the HF Hub in the past year"
Is this what caused the title to be "300%"?
a. that's actually ~200%
b. isn't growth, as defined by number of repos (which might be free) the wrong metric. It's super is to scale adoption when you're giving something away for free
- mucle6 2y agoI was going to correct you but I was wrong For anyone else that got tripped up... 1x to 3x is 200% growth because you don't get to count the original 1x
- umvi 2y agoIt's kind of confusing because it depends on how you phrase it with percentages. "The number of cores in the PC went up by 50%" means "there are now 1.5x as many cores" However, "the number of cores in the PC is 50% what is was last year" means "there are now .5x as many cores" In this case 200% is fairly unambiguous, but imagine a phrase like "scaling community 50% per year" which could mean different things depending on the direction of the scaling... I think it's more intuitive to use a multiplier: "scaling community 3x bigger per year" makes it easy to visualize an online community tripling in size every year.
- swyx 2y ago[OP here] yeah youre right i've adjusted to 200%, ty
- dheera 2y agoThey said 300%, not growth by 300% IMO I prefer the former ("growth factor") calculation to the "growth by" calculation as it's simpler, it's just [the_percentage]/100 * current_value in the other case it is (the_percentage + 100)/100 * current_value which takes an extra CPU cycle of my brain
- swyx 2y ago[op here] i've just switched it to 200% bc its the smaller number, but i agree that was what i was thinking
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- abidlabs 2y ago(b) growth is still the right metric imo. for example, lots of open-source libraries (which by definition are available to use for free) measure and optimize for growth