I'm not sure what you mean by my point, I'll assume you're referring to the STEM reference.
I need more from an argument than "Here is a synonym for a power law function. If a power function has different parameters, it has a different output".
I would be more easily blinded if I was encountering Wright's Law - spending more on things make things insanely cheap insanely quick - without knowing what a power law is and knowing it was just arguing from that.
I will put it as simple as I can: I have read your comment. Multiple times. I have no idea what you are saying.
> I need more from an argument than "Here is a synonym for a power law function. If a power function has different parameters, it has a different output".
That's your re-phrasing, and I don't find it accurate. What the article questions is what is the parameter of the power function. If it is merely time, you can sit on your hands and solar panels get magically cheaper. You can't make the clock tick faster, therefore it would be foolish to want to speed the process up.
But if the input to the function is "cumulative production" rather than time (as the article argues it is) then by sitting on your hands you slooow the function down.
I’m terribly sorry if it came through as hurtfull. Was not my intention.
> dang puts it as "coming with curiosity"
I believe i lived up to that ethos on this occasion. I gave multiple reading to your comment. And when I concluded that I do not understand your thesis I wrote a very carefully worded message to let you know.
In fact it seems someone else already wrote you a comment with the same message. They told you that they don’t understand you, and you responded as if they disagreed with some detail of your point. When I would have expected that you either ignore them (as is your right) or that you clarify your overall thought.
> ELI5 accent you used is even helpful
I did that perhaps unintentionally. I hope you don’t mind me asking: is English your native language?
> I'm not sure why you're down on yourself.
I assure you I’m not down on myself. Not sure what gave you that impression.
> Yes, it's a function. Yes, it has parameters. Yes, the parameters can be adjusted.
> And?
And you overgeneralised the article and lost their point in the meantime. “If You Open Your Mind Too Much Your Brain Will Fall Out” as the song says.
> I also recommend the more constructive reply to my post, from an hour before you posted.
