Hacker Read

DiThi · 2015-11-22 20:33:22+00:00

In the official graph it actually goes negative.

tobr | karma 9868 | avg karma 5.28 · | 2021-04-23 06:09:18

Thanks. But doesn’t that chart show the exact opposite?

reggiepret | karma 13 | avg karma 0.42 · | 2021-07-19 08:51:43

this is great!!

The final cashflow amount of the house graph (in the example) ends in the negative, s this accurate?

reply

amelius | karma 42902 | avg karma 1.63 · | 2022-01-25 15:56:19

Eh, since COVID, graphs that are going down are interpreted as positive.

queuebert | karma 2486 | avg karma 2.76 · | 2023-08-18 15:26:14

That doesn't mean negative. The curve could be flat, then steeply rises to match LNT at some point.

rz2k | karma 2701 | avg karma 2.7 · | 2022-12-19 08:42:29

And that graph does not include the 2022 experiment with 3.15, which also happened to be the first one with net positive output.

endless1234 | karma 495 | avg karma 2.56 · | 2019-04-30 05:37:01+00:00

Why should it start at specifically zero though? Growth can be, and often is, negative. Shouldn't it start at -50 to be sure? The point of the chart is exactly to show ("exaggerate") the difference in values!

rconti | karma 11874 | avg karma 2.49 · | 2019-11-20 18:10:09+00:00

It's odd how each graph shows a dip at -1 year.

HaloZero | karma 1597 | avg karma 3.71 · | 2010-04-02 05:50:05+00:00

the graph is a bit misleading, If you look at the daily count there is a massive drop and then it stays fairly consistent afterwards.

silvestrov | karma 4548 | avg karma 4.95 · | 2013-12-29 18:13:47+00:00

All those graphs should start the y-axis with 0%, starting at 5% or 10% makes the decline/increase seem bigger than it really is.

ebiester | karma 6432 | avg karma 2.99 · | 2010-05-10 23:36:26

The excel graph will take into account those little things. As long as the direction continues downward, the daily numbers don't matter.

peter303 | karma 2478 | avg karma 1.38 · | 2019-11-27 23:40:08+00:00

I distrust some graphs that dont start at zero origin. The trend is magnified then.

jellicle | karma 8960 | avg karma 4.41 · | 2011-03-07 20:18:32+00:00

I don't understand those charts at all. Some charts show growth (right side of line is higher than left side of line) but the growth figure is negative. Some charts show decline, but the growth figure is highly positive. I have no idea what those charts are supposed to be illustrating - seems to be random noise.

swader999 | karma 3436 | avg karma 1.31 · | 2021-07-27 15:51:12

To be honest if you cut the graph in half, there's a noticeable dip there too.

msutherl | karma 1791 | avg karma 2.48 · | 2011-12-29 23:42:55

If the x-axis is 'forward progress', then there is no issue (except that strict "negative progress" may not be defineable).

tener | karma 1014 | avg karma 2.95 · | 2016-11-14 07:25:31+00:00

Their graphs are showing a large growth in 2017 which are pure predictions. To makes matters worse they are not marked as such which is misleading.

overcast | karma 8759 | avg karma 2.69 · | 2016-11-02 19:00:19+00:00

Well they weren't wrong, growth leveled off to nothing. More a reverse logarithmic graph.

erdewit | karma 420 | avg karma 4.33 · | 2018-06-04 11:23:14+00:00

The current level is at 400 ppm, while that graph only goes to 300.

winslow | karma 447 | avg karma 1.48 · | 2017-08-23 22:20:11+00:00

That definitely puts some perspective on things. It's a little bit absurd it was at 0% and it stayed there for so long. Never in the previous history (at least of the graph history) did it stay at the same rate for so long.

ipieter | karma 17 | avg karma 2.83 · | 2024-05-19 10:44:08

Yeah I just tried it with numbers I knew a bit and it seems totally made up. The generated chart showed a linear downwards trend while in reality there isn't one and the numbers seem way off.