• @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          46 months ago

          (apologies for pedantry) This can’t be the case, as the zero point is visible in the graph and even gets crossed to the negatives. Log scale graphs only show positive values and place zero infinitely below the horizontal axis.

          • oce 🐆
            link
            fedilink
            56 months ago

            It’s a choice, it’s not mandatory to use a log on your y axis when you plot a log.

  • @Aceticon
    link
    676 months ago

    Neatly showing why when all you have is two data points you can’t just assume the best fit function for extrapolation is a linear one.

    Mind you, a surprisingly large number of political comments is anchored in exactly that logic.

      • @Aceticon
        link
        19
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Good point and well spotted!

        PS: Though it’s not actually called exponential (as it isn’t enr-3-month-periods but rather 2nr-3-month-periods ) but has a different name which I can’t recall anymore.

        PPS: Found it - it’s a “geometric progression”.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          15
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          By tweaking a few parameters you can turn every base into any other base for exponentials. Just use e^(ln(b)*x)

          PS: The formula here would be e^(ln(2)/3*X) and x is the number of months. So the behavior it’s exponential in nature.

          • @Aceticon
            link
            -1
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            By that definition you can turn any linear function a * x + b, “exponential” by making it e^ln(a*x +b) even though it’s actually linear (you can do it to anything, including sin() or even ln() itself, which would make per that definition the inverse of exponential “exponential”).

            Essentially you’re just doing f(f-1(g(x))) and then saying “f(m) is em so if I make m = ln(g(x)) then g(x) is exponential”

            Also the correct formula in your example would be e^(ln(2)*X/3) since the original formula if X denotes months is 2X/3

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          36 months ago

          PPS: Found it - it’s a “geometric progression”.

          A terminology that I learned from the Terminator 2 movie. Only that was, I think, a “geometric rate”.

            • @Aceticon
              link
              2
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              One of the best mathematical stories from ancient times, IMHO,

      • body_by_make
        link
        fedilink
        56 months ago

        Close, if you’d instead called it global warming I’d have bought it

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Dammit, we’re on a cooling trajectory, prepare for a new ice age and the approach to absolute zero by end of year

  • @chetradley
    link
    316 months ago

    If you’ve ever seen a growth chart, you know that newborns grow incredibly quickly, but the rate of growth tapers off over time. That being said, my daughter will be six feet tall by the time she’s 2:

  • @Rambomst
    link
    206 months ago

    It looks like he aged 5 years in 3 months…

      • @WhiskyTangoFoxtrot
        link
        176 months ago

        Oh oh, don’t tell me, I’ll guess! It’s the baby, right? The baby’s not a parent?

          • @Rambomst
            link
            20
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I was talking about the dad, lol.

            I should have been more specific given they are both male.

            • Flying Squid
              link
              15
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Oh, yeah. That makes a lot more sense! And that’s what being kept up every night for months will do to you.

            • @dingus
              link
              English
              4
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              To be fair, the lighting conditions are way more flattering in the first pic. When you have even lighting all over your front, it minimizes wrinkles. The second pic seems like it was taken in the evening with only one light source (or a few…but it seems like maybe an overhead porch light), making wrinkles and such far more prominent.

            • @agent_flounder
              link
              English
              36 months ago

              As a parent with a kid who didn’t sleep well I knew what you meant lol

    • @Vash63
      link
      106 months ago

      As a father I can confirm this seems right

  • Annoyed_🦀
    link
    fedilink
    116 months ago

    His son’s face looks like that’s not the first time dad tell that joke.

    “i’ve heard that before, dad.”

    • @agent_flounder
      link
      English
      4
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      3 month milestone: baby is so over it

  • @Buddahriffic
    link
    76 months ago

    There’s another problem that his math missed. His baby-making rate stands at one per three months. Extrapolating that for all humans puts the population’s doubling rate at EVERY THREE MONTHS! In 10 years, there will be a lot of ~3 trillion kg kids!

    If every 10 billion people can make a new earth every year, I think we should be able to get on top of this.