Great piece, thanks for posting. I'm surely over-fixating on the trade-off figures, and i agree wholeheartedly with the point you make, but if the curve is convex in the shape you have it, isn't the optimal strategy to shoot for the point 45 degrees from the origin? ie to do both? The notion that shooting for both results in a muddled mess would be a concave curve, while simple 1:1 trade off would be a straight line. Or am i just reading these wrong?
Think of it like a circle, where the distance to any point is the radius. It's the same all around. If you are seeing some other curvature, it's my bad drawing on Google Slides.
Second, Total Impact = A^alpha + B^alpha ... it's not A*B (which was misleading in the text!). So substitution.
Great piece, thanks for posting. I'm surely over-fixating on the trade-off figures, and i agree wholeheartedly with the point you make, but if the curve is convex in the shape you have it, isn't the optimal strategy to shoot for the point 45 degrees from the origin? ie to do both? The notion that shooting for both results in a muddled mess would be a concave curve, while simple 1:1 trade off would be a straight line. Or am i just reading these wrong?
Thanks, Jim!
Two points.
Think of it like a circle, where the distance to any point is the radius. It's the same all around. If you are seeing some other curvature, it's my bad drawing on Google Slides.
Second, Total Impact = A^alpha + B^alpha ... it's not A*B (which was misleading in the text!). So substitution.
Let me clarify in the text that its NOT A*B. :)