Is growth linear, not exponential?

> To demonstrate this, the two models are subjected to various statistical tests on multiple data sets, mostly 20th-century, from the US and about two dozen other countries. In a later section, the models are tested on European data from 1600–1914. The linear model outperforms on pretty much every test

Why not just use minimum description length?

Sure, but I'd then make the same (modified) argument.

So sometimes it's quadratic, once in a while cubic. Never exponential. Never, never exponential. Rid that of your mind! If there were infinitely many dimensions, exponential growth would be possible. There are not, so it's impossible.

So cells. Cells do not multiply exponentially. DNA does not move faster than the speed of light! Nothing in the cell does! It may look exponential but actually that's cubic, they're easily confused, along with a shitty excel library, and bad measurement, measuring it on the small side early on. And what else? A bad education, being told exponential growth is real.

Yeah! Bunnies yeah, I had a math book when I was a kid and they showed Fibonacci numbers with bunnies, well actually a pervy old two-year rabbit with a sweet innocent one-year bunny, there has to be an age difference to set up the Fibonacci numbers. And that's still exponential growth, just with a lower base.

I bet if you actually had bunnies you could say fuck it they double every season and deal with them on that basis. You'd be wrong...but by how much, like get real? Plus the bunnies have the INTENTION of doubling, they each WANT to have lots of bunnies per season. I think that's the crux of it, despite the impossibility nature's program is exponential.

Yeah there's always economic miracles or Moore's law but for diodes or some shit, something, they all peter out. All of them. No exceptions. All of them.

Moore's law is in the saggy part of the S-curve, it's been morally dead for fourteen years in some ways, eleven years in others, and for eight years transistors flat out don't shrink at all they just pack more of them in the same space. I saw this coming, I did the math with the size of the transistors and the size of the chips and realized 99.5% of the area on a chip was empty back when 14 nanometer was the smallest. That's what new lithographies go for, they fill up that empty space. It ain't over til it's over, but when it is in fact over, it's over. It's over.

[1] South Korea, China, which is the new one? Is there a new one? A lot of the time it's artificial and carefully presented to market the exponential curve shit, mainly by lying about the beginning of the segment to make it look smaller and the end of the segment to make it look bigger. Shoehorning it. Also defining the segment as unique, like giving it an identity so it's meaningful to isolate it from the bigger picture which is not exponential because it has a past and a future. Moore's Law talks about transistors, why not talk about valves instead and look at the history since the nineteenth century, or since Leibniz for that matter? Like you can make a switch out of wood, people did, they transmitted energy by moving staffs of wood back and forth. Cuckoo clocks. Antikythera mechanism. The abacus. Mental arithmetic.

The big thing there is for usury, usurers have to keep the dream of exponential growth alive to charge exponential compound interest without getting tarred and feathered like so many usurers before them.