Note that I specified the “short-term” chartist position carefully specifically to delineate a group away from objections like yours.
I don’t think many chartist haters are typically as smart or humble as you imply they are. During COVID there were waves upon waves of people who kept insisting that the virus will break any day now against the clear exponential and calling us naive, and they seemed to not update much on being wrong just days before.
Well, it actually depends on how you partition the time steps. Is the next day? Year? Decade? Millenium?
The way I’ll think about it is: if a trend has been true for N years, where N is between 10 and 100, N+1 probably refers to years rather than days. If it’s been true for 0.5 years, N+1 probably doesn’t refer to years.
One reason your choice of unit matters less than you might think is that Laplace’s law of succession is pretty helpful here, and the numbers converge nicely (1 year after 100 years gives you similar number to 365 days after 100*365).
Note that I specified the “short-term” chartist position carefully specifically to delineate a group away from objections like yours.
I don’t think many chartist haters are typically as smart or humble as you imply they are. During COVID there were waves upon waves of people who kept insisting that the virus will break any day now against the clear exponential and calling us naive, and they seemed to not update much on being wrong just days before.
The way I’ll think about it is: if a trend has been true for N years, where N is between 10 and 100, N+1 probably refers to years rather than days. If it’s been true for 0.5 years, N+1 probably doesn’t refer to years.
One reason your choice of unit matters less than you might think is that Laplace’s law of succession is pretty helpful here, and the numbers converge nicely (1 year after 100 years gives you similar number to 365 days after 100*365).