hockey

They expect hockey stick growth figures from a single product company that clearly already dominates their niche.

This lie is clever because you're so caught on hockey-stick that you forget to question the premise of competitive.

The procedure that generated the hockey stick graph doesn't generate roughly the same graph almost independent of the input data?

Because of this designers aren't forced to approach the steep part of the hockey stick.

The hockey stick is mainly needed to deal with impatient investors, not in itself.

Having detailed logs of user growth is invaluable (the much-vaunted hockey stick), however this level of granularity is unavailable in the physical world.

A few sports games did as well, like some of the NHL Hockey games starting with NHL '95 I believe.

It's all about making it look like hockey stick growth to investors.

Of course this is also the doldrum period of the sports year, with football long over, and basketball and hockey in their offseasons also.

They also had a really stupid hockey-stick output graph each month.

Don't look for the knee of the hockey stick.

This was the case even though it was obvious that there was a massive market coming-- in both of the above examples, the hockey stick had started.

That's way too broad a statement and I don't agree with using "innovate" to mean "hockey stick".

The "real" climatologists stopped mentioning the hockey stick a while ago, at least in places where some numeracy could be assumed.

To nitpick, it's the "National Hockey League" (NHL) and has seven Canadian teams and 23 American teams (likely increasing to 8 and 24 soon).

So for mentors, the later the better.) SV's second biggest lie is that you need the so-called "hockey-stick" growth curve to be competitive in order to be successful.