Also, the start of an S-curve can be described by an exponential function, right? So it is an exponential.
My point more generally was to not underestimate processes which increase exponentially. Even if they flatten at some point, they can drastically change the world and fast. For example, iPhones and computer chips took off slowly, but once they started moving they took over the world. (Or do you not have multiple smartphones and computer chips in your house right now?)
And yes your point that it's all an s-curve is theoretically correct. But I think it's a semantic discussion. Next time I'll say "never underestimate the first half of an S-curve."
[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption
The reason I say "always underestimate" is the obvious one. The easy problems are solved first, then the harder ones take longer because they're harder.
So that's fantastic that battery production scaled up. Only a fool would expect - would plan on - it continuing like that.
Other examples are cruise ship sizes, US GDP per capita, or Microsoft stock price.
The point really is this: go back in time to some of these things a few decades years ago. You would say: “How is this even possible? This is crazy. This will probably plateau soon. This can’t continue.”
But it did. Cruise ships went from 20, to 100, to 200 and now 365 meters in length.
And the same will probably happen for batteries. People say “ah well this is crazy. It will probably plateau soon”. My point is maybe it won’t. Once these exponentials (starts of s-curves) go, they go. Standing at the bottom of an s-curve and predicting the plateau soon can lead to a massive misprediction. Like the IBM CEO who said there will never be a market for more than 10 computers. He was off by about a billion.
