🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@search_social

True, technically that is a more accurate term the growth rate. Though I was speaking in layman's terms

@zensaiyuki @2ck

@snder Hey noticed a year ago you requested access to the Aparapi group on qoto's git but i never saw it so i never granted or rejected.. any reason you want access, all the repos are public? access is usually for moderators or contributors. were you looking to contribute?

Holy crap just realized the blog article I wrote is 63 pages long. I wrote a damn book :)

For those of you who enjoyed my recent blog post on Circuit Duals and Magnetic Circuits I have now compiled a version of it in PDF if you want to keep a local copy or have it for reading on on an e-reader. Feel free to distribute the link.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fECh_IeFYBHoFuaw08zO2dkluZPunkP7/view?usp=sharing

For those of you who are just now hearing about it the article describes the idea of Duality in math, how it applies to circuits, how to calculate duals for systems of equations, and a few examples of circuit duals. It also goes indepth on magnetic circuits as a dual of electric circuits. There is an interesting blurb at the end about how to extract energy from permanent magnets as well.

If you prefer the more colorful blog link instead, which will also be the only place I make corrections or update it most likely, the link for that is as follows:

http://jeffreyfreeman.me/an-indepth-look-at-duals-and-their-circuits/

#Electronics #EE ##RF #HamRadio #AmateurRadio #Science #Physics #Math #Maths #mathematics #qotojournal

@Demosthenes except the replacement rate figure of 2.1 is a vast oversimplification when in reality the replacement rate changes from year to year, and country to country as well. Which is why population growth will give a far more accurate number since replacement rate can more difficult to calculate.

Its been a while since i looked at the actual numbers in any detail. I'll pull them up when i get home and see where the replacement rate has varried over time if i can find a good source on it.

@Demosthenes Not to mention, as wobble tends to do, the past two years fertility rate has **increased**.

To give you a better picture of why this is wobble and not a trend int he usa:

1958 - 1970 fertility rate declined.

1970 - 1994 fertility rate increased year after year

1994 - 1998 fertility rate decreased year after year

1998 - 2009 fertility rate increased year after year

2008 - 2018 fertility rate decreased year after year

2018 - 2020 fertility rate increased year after year

More over there has been no consistent trend in either direction since 1975, at which point it was at the lowest it had been (1.77) where it "wobbled" to 2.12 by 2007 where it peaked, and continues to wobble, again, averaging overall above 2.

@Demosthenes Theusa as an example has wobbled between 1.7 and 1.11 fertility rate with the 70s both up and down. It has **not** significantly trended in either direction, and its average has remained positive. Do not mistake short term "wobble" for trends.

In fact in the USa the fertility rate has **increased** from 1.77 to 2.11 consistently up until 2007 and only wobbled downward since then. But the variation here is not statistically signficant, and again **averages** in the positive.

@Demosthenes No they havent.. As I already covered the fertility stalls out just above 2 and the population growth rate stays sustained in ~ the the 2% annualized range. This is the case with hong kong and the USA as the examples I already gave, which are both post industrial societies and have been averaging in the positive for over a decade. So no, they do not trend below 2 births per woman or below % population growth at all.

They will occasionally go below 2 births per woman, but they wobble both upa nd down below that rate, as does population growth, without a clear trend beyond that point and with averages in the positive, mostly level.

@Demosthenes Thats not a trend to below 0. I covered this already in two seperate points..

1) changes in fertility rate and population growth are not linear-scale properties. Therefore trends on linear graphs do not depict momentum, and therefore is not a trend in the predictive sense. This is bore out and well proven with the Verhulst equation

2) because of #1, you will see linear trends when fertility rate or population growth is well in the positive (fertility rates well above 2), but you will find the long term trend is for them to level off with population growth in the positive (and thus fertility rate averaging >2).

These points were the whole basis for me showing mid-industrial, low-population countries (where the rate of change will still be in the linear part of the trend like sudan), and post-industrial higher-population countries like hong-kong and the USA where they are in the logarithmic part of the chart and have consistently held steady for at least a decade or more in the positive.

@cos Done you have a 20GB quota. If you use that up just ask me I can and usually will increase it.

@cos Oh you meant on peertube, sorry thought you meant QOTO.. Strictly speaking its for STEM content yes, however if you are an active user here on the social media side, and if your content is copyright infringement or something we find objectionable (we will let you know) we tend to look the other way. So you should be ok within reason.

Havent had to censor anyones content on peertube yet who was a member over here.

@Demosthenes I never said middle income, I said mid-industrial, and their quality of life is bad compared to industrialized countries, yes, but not as bad as pre-industrial countries.. they are middling in that regard. Which is exactly why they were picked. Also income is not a measure of industrialization and the two do not correlate linearly, so income is not relevant here without a **lot** of normalizing of that figure.

As for fertility rate going down below 2, per woman, that is true, but the very point is that it **doesnt** go below 2 sustainably. As we covered as sudan industrialized their population growth went up, even as their older population gained in perportion it still went up. While fertility rate went down slightly it didnt approach anywhere near 2 (its at 4.47), and population growth rate is never a positive value when its below 2, so in none of the countries mentioned is fertility rate been averaging or trending towards a <2 figure.

@cos Where do the rules state your content needs to be exclusive STEM or OS? We require you to be in STEM or to be a STEM enthusiast but we explicitly state in the rules that your content does not need to be exclusively STEM.

@cy

No, growth rate and fertility do go down with higher population density due to carrying capacity effects.

Now if you had infinite resources then you would be correct, it is unbounded in that case. But when resources are finite it follows the Verhulst equation.

I wrote a paper explaining this and the math behind it. It covers the unrestricted exponential growth as well as how when there are limited resources it becomes restricted logarithmic growth (verhulst equation):

http://jeffreyfreeman.me/restricted-logarithmic-growth-with-injection/

@Demosthenes

@Demosthenes That isnt bore out by the evidence. Sudan, for example, has due to industrialization had a noticable increase in both longevity and the perportion of their older population. However their growth rate has not slowed in that time as you suggest. In fact their population growth rate has increased by 42%.

Fertility rates are not useful since our whole discussion is centered around population growth which judges movement towards or away from carrying capacity.. If fertility rate goes down, but survivability increases more, then the trend is still towards teh carrying capacity. We are also measuring the growth rate relative to how close a population is to its carrying capacity (densest populations vs least dense), where again fertility rate would not apply.

@Demosthenes Not entierly true...

well lets look at some of the most dense areas, as well as highest population growths then and compare...

Higher end of population density, post industrial.

USA has a population density of 35 per km^2 and its growth rate has held steady around 0.5%-2% the last decade, averaging about 1%

Hong kong has one of the highest densities and 6,791 per km^2 and its population growth over the last decade or so has been 0.5% - 1%, averaging about 0.75%

Lower end of population density wall being mid-industrial:

Niger is at 19 per km^2 with a population growth of 3.16%, which is one of the highest (top 10) population growths of all countries (7th), with one of the lowest population densities (197), and the first one that struck me as mid-industrial

All other mid-industrial countries with low population density and have the highest population growths as well.

Sudan for example is about 21 people per km^2, which ranks them 195th on population density. Their growth rate is 2.93% annualized, which is the 9th highest growth rate.

Only time you see a country that tends to have a low growth rate and low population density is pre-industrial.

@Demosthenes you asked about africa overall, you cant refind the scope to just areas that are locally dense due to free movement into and out of the city and lack of data on the growth rate due to only births local to the city. The data we have is usually country-wide in terms of growth rate and as such that is the narrowest scope we can discuss