[conspire] Correction

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Texx (texxgadget at gmail.com):

> Yesterday, you rattled off a numerical progression based on doubles.
> To me that is geometric.

No, it really isn't.

Please allow the guy with the math degree to disambiguate.  Quoting
Wikipedia (in part) to save time:

A _geometric_ progression is one where each term after the first is
found by multiplying the previous one by a fixed, non-zero number called
the common ratio.  For example, the sequence 2, 6, 18, 54,... is a
geometric progression with common ratio 3.

An _exponential_ progression is one where each term after the first 
is the prior term multiplied by a factor with an exponent whose value
(the exponent's value) goes up by one more with each term.  For example, 
the sequence 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 is an exponential progression
with multiplication factor 2^(t-1) between terms, where t is the term
index number.

The point is that exponential sequences curve upwards very dramatically 
after a few terms, in exactly the way geometric ones (let alone linear
ones) do not.

Most laymens' habits of thinking quickly revert to imagining linear
progressions, because that's mostly what they encounter from day to day,
_even_ when the explainer is very specific about the matter under
discussion involving exponential growth -- as with the algae on the pond.



> I dont consider doubling a log curve.

{sigh}

_Logarithmic_ sequences are a different thing again.



> Please bear in mind that anything you dont agree with does not make it
> "click bait"

Texx, you are arguing (and moreover doing so with tiresome gutter
rhetoric).   I already said, don't even try arguing on this point, that
it is _not_ open to debate, period.  You possibly haven't quite figured
out that I run this joint, and thus ultimately it is not a democracy.
When I say 'Don't do that thing here', I expect you to figure it out.
If you don't, I will bring out the hammer.

If you cannot figure out what is deemed sleazy clickbait, then you are
going to have a problem here.  I suggest you figure it out.

I don't care about your irrelevant opinions on the matter, and don't
want to hear them again.


> I am finding stuff in mainstream news articles.

Yeah, _that_.  'Mainstream'.  Be a lot more selective.


> "Click bait" is....

No, Texx.  Don't even.

Figure it out, or the hammer is the next step.  Stop arguing, or I will 
give you one official warning as listadmin, and then the next step would
be to forcibly curb this shit.

Not a fscking democracy.  You are on my turf, and you're just about out
of warnings.


> Rick makes a point, this data is drastically under reported.
> One one hand, the immediate crisis is keeping CA current rates below 45k
> people.
> The untested, are likely only minorly affected and wont contribute to the
> overwhelming of the system.
[...]

You have once again ignored the point I made immediately upthread.
I honestly suggest you stop babbling for a while.  This is not overall a
good use of your time or that of the rest of the CABAL subscriber base.
I'm aware you said that doing near-stream-of-consciousness postings to
conspire at linuxmafia.com is helping you cope with this societal crisis,
but CABAL's mailing list is not a free personal-therapy service.

You need to tone it down a few notches, basically.



> Pity, I wont be around to watch.

Going somewhere?  ;->

> I previously believed we only needed tests for part of the population, but
> Im backtracking on that.

Why don't you leave that question to competent medical professionals?

> Regarding online Python, I actually found one and Im doing better on the
> recruiting programming challenges.

Good, enjoy!