Correction: Understanding Exponential Growth and Our Limitations (2)
Corrected by Emir Baycan · Full-Stack Developer, Mobile App Builder and Web Platform Founder with expertise in SEO, automation, SaaS, AI visibility, DevOps and scalable digital products
Emir Baycan found something wrong, outdated, or unsupported on this page and proposed a fix. The publisher accepted the correction.
- Role
- Correction
- Publisher
- When Notes Fly
- Topic
- Concepts
- Status
- Accepted
- Date
- 28 July 2026
The exact change
The article gave chessboard masses about 1,000x too large, a 3-6 day COVID doubling time attributed to Li et al., a Lyu-Wehby study framed as a South Korea/Taiwan/New Zealand early-intervention comparison, a credit-card balance that both doubles and is paid down by minimum payments, a specific 2001 Kahneman study, universal Ebbinghaus forgetting percentages, and an IPCC prediction of exponential warming acceleration.
Recomputed the grain masses at the stated conversion rate, corrected the epidemiological and study attributions to the primary sources, separated the incompatible debt calculations, and qualified the psychology and climate claims to what the sources actually support.
Suggested change
See before/after.
Why this is better
These were verifiable arithmetic errors and mis-citations. Corrections use the article's own stated conversion rate and the primary studies (Li et al. 2020; Lyu and Wehby 2020; the 2016 O'Neill AMR Review; IPCC AR6) rather than new unverified sources.
How this record is verified
- The contribution is tied to a real, identified contributor, not an anonymous byline.
- It counts only because the publisher, When Notes Fly, accepted it. Self-claimed work earns nothing.
- It is recorded against a specific page and cannot be bought or edited after the fact.