> Chamath mistaking 0.85 absolute as 0.85 relative is fairly easy to do. I would disagree. If you're actually looking at the data, then anyone with a high scho

> Chamath mistaking 0.85 absolute as 0.85 relative is fairly easy to do. I would disagree. If you're actually looking at the data, then anyone with a high school education should know that you don't take percentages of percentages like this. I still think it's ignorance more than malice, but I can't trust someone who would make a simple mistake like this to prove a point. I need my sources of information to at least be unbiased in how they view facts of data. You can represent those facts differently. For example, he might think that 30% of growth being tied to government spending is high and I can follow his reasoning based on that. However if he claims that the actual figure is 85% then the starting point itself is incorrect.