3 ms·

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/403183731449413632/photo/1 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/403183731449413632/photo/1

• dangrossman 13y ago
  That graph certainly makes the premise of the article seem entirely incorrect.
  • rgbrenner 13y ago
    That graph contains no numbers and therefore does not have enough information to refute (or even disagree) the article
  • joshuaknox 13y ago
    That graph doesn't have labelled axes, so it's pretty hard to glean much of anything from it accurately. Assuming blue is Nov 2012-Nov 2013, that means that the starting point for 6 months ago is roughly 2/3 of the way across the blue. Eyeballing it, the height roughly doubles during that period, which would be consistent with the article. Disclosure: I work for Braintree.
    • pbreit 13y ago
      If blue is 12 months then 6 months would be 1/2 across and it looks more like tripling (and accelerating, rapidly).