| ▲ | paxy 3 hours ago |
| You can tell how desperate an argument is by how many derivatives they are using. |
|
| ▲ | lhd1 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I have no issue taking arbitrary derivatives... provided you're not taking derivatives of very noisy data. |
|
| ▲ | eqvinox 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Growth being the first derivative… so… not particularly desperate? |
| |
| ▲ | dmurray 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Their growth was positive. The second derivative (growth of their growth) was likely negative, and that's what this article is about. | | |
| ▲ | eqvinox 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Right, but a comparison is always one more implicit derivative. If you look at revenue itself, it's growing or shrinking, that's first derivative. So there's one more derivative here than usual? I guess the interesting thing would be to look at actual company assets/value rather than revenue; revenue already in itself is a derivative. I.e., contrast their revenue against expenses. Last I heard those numbers are deep red, aren't they? | | |
| ▲ | hinkley 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Revenue is an integral. They sum up the rate of cash in versus cash out to get revenue. Thats dollars/hour over 91 days. |
|
| |
| ▲ | nfw2 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Growth is first derivative. Deceleration is second derivative. Focusing on second not first I think was the point, not implying there is some nth derivative under discussion. | |
| ▲ | brink 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Winning an argument online 101: call your opponent desperate. |
|
|
| ▲ | slopinthebag 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| when politicians and bankers talk about "reducing inflation" they use the same derivative |
|
| ▲ | simianwords 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| New bubble pops theory found: the 15th derivative is negative guys! Ed Zitron's 10000 word slop essay to follow |
|
| ▲ | freecodeio 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
