Re:The Real Price of Oil
by Turbo_hedgehog on Tuesday September 29, 2015 @02:40AM
(#10294912)
Never. -fold is times, so it's 52x
Re:The Real Price of Oil
by colechristensen on Tuesday September 29, 2015 @02:49AM
(#10294922)
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=-fold&allowed_in_fr...
Even though one might think it's 2^x (fold something in half twice and it's 4 times as thick, three times and it's 8, etc.) it's actually a rather archaic usage for multiplying.
Re:The Real Price of Oil
by SamReidHughes on Tuesday September 29, 2015 @03:33AM
(#10295022)
Imagine a fan-fold.
Re:The Real Price of Oil
by bottled_poe on Tuesday September 29, 2015 @04:31AM
(#10295165)
I think the point is that the term is ambiguous.
Re:The Real Price of Oil
by SamReidHughes on Tuesday September 29, 2015 @04:49AM
(#10295202)
It's not.
Re:The Real Price of Oil
by AnimalMuppet on Tuesday September 29, 2015 @12:39PM
(#10297517)
No longer as common as it used to be, perhaps even archaic, but not ambiguous.
Re:The Real Price of Oil
by QuantumRoar on Tuesday September 29, 2015 @07:38AM
(#10295605)
Weird. I also learned that -fold is not the same as times. For example, cosmic inflation was 60-fold, not times.
But when I look it up, it says -fold is equivalent to just a multiple.
That is not inflation adjusted. Also 1970 is before the usd was taken off the gold standard, and the subsequent oil shocks that followed. Gold/oil has traded in a range that whole time, while gold/usd and oil/usd has changed, well, 52 times.
Inflation adjusted today's prices are not that bad in comparison.
Surely that can't be right? Wouldn't that mean that 2014 price = 1970 * 2^(52) ?