When a journalist uses the term "inflection point" to describe growth

[swampwiz]

I was reading an article about Amazon's growth hitting an "inflection point" where basically the function changed from going more or less linearly (i.e., power = 1) to a more parabolic (i.e., power > 1). It seems to me that this term is being misused since an inflection point really describes the point at which a function changes its concavity from down to up (or vice-versa). Ironically, an inflection point is precisely when the function is going linear (i.e., has a curvature of 0).

 

[phinds]

I was reading an article about Amazon's growth hitting an "inflection point" where basically the function changed from going more or less linearly (i.e., power = 1) to a more parabolic (i.e., power > 1). It seems to me that this term is being misused since an inflection point really describes the point at which a function changes its concavity from down to up (or vice-versa). Ironically, an inflection point is precisely when the function is going linear (i.e., has a curvature of 0).

You are getting hung up on a technical term being used in a colloquial English language way. That happens a lot and railing against it is useless regardless of how frustrating it can be when you know the correct technical definition.

Here's one that says "business" but it's really used more widely than that.

 

[pcltai]

I understand the real (mathematica) meaning of "inflection". Many politicians and journalists have been using the term wrongly when they could have used the simpler term "change direction". Often that was what they wish to convey. However, "inflection" appeared to be fashionable and it sounds more "learned".
Other commonly misused terms are: "10 items or LESS", optics (image), naturally, by definition, "dial (telephone)", tape (record), ....

 

[phinds]

Many politicians and journalists have been using the term wrongly ...

Not according to common usage, they haven't. Do you think their usage confuses anyone?

Usage of the term "optics" has taken on a whole new, non-technical, life among politicians and TV news people.

Yeah, "10 or less" is the kind of grammatical atrocity that makes me grit my teeth but seriously awful grammar is totally common today. For example, even news casters on TV have no idea how to use personal pronouns (and I'm not talking about gender related changes to the language, but actual grammatical errors such as "When me and him had our conversation ..."

"Tape" has been used to mean "record" for many decades and like "inflection point" causes zero confusion in the listeners. I can remember using it that way in the 1960's.

"Dial me" for "telephone me" is a usage I haven't heard but perhaps it's a local dialect. British English uses "ring me" for "telephone me" or "call me".

Also, there are local dialects throughout America that sound awful to ears no used to them but perfectly normal to the users. For example, in Ohio (Dublin, a suburb of Columbus) where I worked for a few years I often heard the following kind of construct: when someone wanted, for example, to say that something needed to be fixed, they would say it "needs fixed". Not "it needs fixing" or "it needs to be fixed", just "it needs fixed". That really grated on me at first but I got used to it.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yeah, "10 or less" is the kind of grammatical atrocity that makes me grit my teeth

Not grammar. Diction.

 

[phinds]

Not grammar. Diction.

Throw the ball way up vs throw the ball very high is diction (word choice). Throw the ball highly is grammar. I contend that "10 or less" is grammar (BAD grammar).