However, when I read the post, it felt very disconnected. He presents his model of upside decay... and then, a GDP graph? Ok... let's see how this is relevant... Ummm... it's not really.
The problem is, I'm sympathetic to some of the drive underlying his points I think, they're just too diffuse and unconnected for me to appreciate in this article.
From top to bottom:
1. what evidence is there GDP growth is predicated upon a few large bursts of progress rather than steady iteration (I think this is likely, but it's asserted without evidence).
2. We've established that we're talking about upside decay, so why are we switching to comparing 0.5 ^ 5 vs. 0.3 ^ 5? (you can argue that he's integrating the side of the normal distribution above 0 for the non-upside-decay and upside-decay case, but why? it doesn't fit with the argument being made, why are we arguing that this model fits what we're trying to look at?).
3. So now we introduce "weak ties" and how they regulate upside-decay. Why? It's presented with no evidence or argument.
e.t.c.
I feel like my comment has come off negative, though I don't particularly want it to. I think there's some interesting stuff here, I just don't think it's particularly well grounded.