Going from almost zero to some small number may present a rate of increase that appears huge.
Going from very large to even larger still may be a much lower rate of increase.
Never let the facts get the way of a good headline?
Going from very large to even larger still may be a much lower rate of increase.
Never let the facts get the way of a good headline?
If you use absolute rates of growth, following a linear curve, no, that's bullshit.
The article has no numbers, but appears very strongly to use the second definition.
I'm not sure what an "absolute rate" (of growth) is, can you explain?
Aren't growth rates usually (always?) expressed as a percentage change of a variable over time? How could that be anything other than relative?
If something grows from 1 to 2 it doubled.
If something grows from 100 to 101 its growth was 1%.
In absolute terms it's the same amount.
So you got it backwards.
But I'd assume that most are just used by their creators.