News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas (2012) by nevdka on Saturday May 20, 2017 @10:08PM (#14385362)
The population growth rate isn't dependant on the base population. You can pretend it is by expressing it as a percentage, but that doesn't make it so.

Look at [0]. 2016 had a higher population than 2015, yet the growth was smaller. Not just a smaller percentage, but actually smaller by about half a million people. If growth was exponential, then the higher population would have a larger increase, but it doesn't, and so the growth isn't exponential.

[0]: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-populati...

Re:Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas (2012) by ljw1001 on Sunday May 21, 2017 @09:10AM (#14387124)
Sigh. The growth _rate_ is not dependent on the population, but the actual numeric growth _amount_ is. It is the _population_ that is growing exponentially.

You are describing the shift from a steep exponential growth curve to a lower exponential growth curve that I mentioned earlier.

If you get 10% compounded interest on your money it grows exponentially at 10%.

If you get 9% compounded interest it grows exponentially at 9%.

And if you _were_ getting 10% and the bank changes the rate to 9% your money is now growing exponentially at 9% interest, assuming only that the interest is reinvested.

Re:Frighteningly Ambitious Startup Ideas (2012) by sobani on Tuesday May 23, 2017 @07:03AM (#14400274)
Assume my bank gives me a linear interest of $10 per year.

Then going from $100 to $110 that would be 10%.

Going from $110 to $120 would be ~9%.

Going from $120 to $130 would be ~8%.

In any year you could conclude my savings grow exponentially. 10%! 9%! whoohoo! But if you look over a longer time frame, it clearly isn't.

And as nevdka mentioned, the population growth is less than linear. If my bank gave me $10 of interest last year and $9 this year, and $8 the next, there is definitely no exponential growth.