Drama in r/f7u12, poster misuses French phrase, escalates quickly, gives out home address to trolls

annyc · 1 month

Did anybody else read the rage comic? oh god that was horrible... how did that get so many upvotes?

Ijustmightdoit · 1 month

Yes, go, absolutely. This could be a great opportunity to get fit, especially with your co-worker that could potentially teach you new exercises. Honestly, if you are as close as you say you guys are, they will most likely provide the support that you need and could help push you towards your goal.

Dazliare · 1 month

Also consider the fact that you are lifting too, maybe you've put on muscle? Do you measure any part of your body or conduct a body fat % test? In your circumstances, they may be a more accurate measure of fat loss.

BigCountry1369 · 1 month

I'm in and looking forward to it. Lost 13 pounds in six weeks so far and this could be that extra little bit of motivation to keep me going even further.

kf92 · 1 month

Had a salmon salad at work when I was dying for a some ribs and chips. About to have a lean cuisine while the rest of the fam ordered pizza.

WWWEH · 2 months

However, I don't think the echo effect explains why the lower birth rate has continued to decline over 40 years - that's about two generations.

I'd say that's where the disadvantages of using crude birth rates come into play. Because of large numbers of people in cohorts that are not of reproductive age, it can lower the actual birth rate even if the total number of births are increasing.

For a simplified example, lets say the population was 1000. Assuming that out of this 1000, 800 were in the ages of 15 - 49, and the other 200 were either below 15 or above 49. Assuming also that 800 babies are born, that would give us a crude birth rate of 800 babies per 1000 population. Now let's say that a generation has passed, with closed migration and zero mortality (for this hypothetical, and we will assume that of those 200 not aged 15-49, 100 were under the age of 15). This means that now there is a total population of 1500. Now 600 are in the ages of 15 - 49, and 900 are above 49. If the amount of births stayed the same, the crude birth rate would be 800/1500 * 1000, which would equal approximately 533 births per 1000 population. Even if the amount of births were to increase, to say, 1100, it would only equal about 733 births per 1000 population. This would still be below the previous generations crude birth rate, even though more babies were born.

Now this is just a very simplified explanation, it's assuming that after the inital rush of births, no more births were recorded until the birth cohort reached the age of fertility. But hopefully it shows how age distribution, and total population size, can affect the crude birth rate. The graph that OP posted shows that the rate of natural increase has been positive, and that the overall population has been increasing, up until the final few years. This would further lower the birth rates.

Even your last edit shows how crude rates can be misleading. For example, Ghana currently has a lower death rate than Japan, 8.75 compared to Japan's 11.09 per 1000 population (as of 2011 - Ghana Japan) However, Japan has a higher proportion of its population in older age groups which have higher mortality rates, while Ghana has a relatively young population, with many of its population in the younger age groups which have a lower mortlity rate. Now, if they had the same age structure, Ghana would have a much higher crude death rate, as they have higher age-specific death rates. That is, for each age cohort, Ghana has higher death rates than Japan, but because Japan has more of its population in the older age cohorts, they would have more deaths, not due to factors such as disease etc, but merely due to the age distribution of the population and the effects of ageing.

P.s. sorry for the rambling

WWWEH · 2 months

more babies started dying.

The graph doesn't show that though, the red line represents the mortality rate, which is the number of deaths per 1000 population.

As for after 1974, I would say that from 1970-973 there was a sort of "echo effect", wherein those born in the post-WW2 baby-boom reached the age of fertility and created a second, smaller baby-boom. After 1974 there would be less women of fertility age and therefore less children born. But it's just a guess, it could be attributed to accessibility to contraception or abortions, advances in womens education and other factors.

Birth rates can be deceiving when talking about population. It would be better to use the total fertility rate (TFR). This is because it shows the number of births to women in the fertility ages (15-44 or 49), while the crude birth rate only shows the number of births per 1000 population. This means that the birth rate is affected by the age distribution. TFR also takes into account issues infant mortality rates and, when discussing replacement levels, the sex ratio at birth.

zanyplebeian · 2 months

According to this, he is working in a local factory, has a young child, and is attending school at night.

menuitem · 2 months

I have been working out at home for the past two weeks and have goals that I set on the treadmill. Yesterday I managed to run 13 KMPH for two whole minutes and in the same workout I beat my pervious high overall distance and amount of calories burnt. It's nothing amazing but it's the little things that keep me motivated to work out again.

Kivla · 3 months

http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/downloads/file.php?id=4323

Enjoy. I really recommend it, one of my favourite mods so far.

Just for the sake of it here is Whiterun before and after for comparison (Plus a few texture mods)

perd-hapley · 5 months

100% deserved too.

I live in Australia and every Friday I have a tradition of torrenting the latest episodes of a number of shows from the US; Community, The Office, IASIP, Modern Family and Parks and Recreation.

Parks and Rec has been the only one that has made me constantly laugh, with IASIP a close second. The Office has suffered without Steve Carell, Modern Family has just been average lately and Community has been my least favourite so far.

rational · 5 months

The population growth rate has declined and will continue to do so. Lowering fertility rates in developing countries, and developed countries with fertility rates already below the replacement level will further contribute to this decline. Long term population projections are difficult to predict as they are very sensitive to changes in mortality, fertility and migration rates. I think most projections should be taken with a grain of salt.

Zacariakus · 6 months

Ooooh demography! Something I can contribute to! Unfortunately though, only an Australian perspective. But I'll give it a shot, some things may cross over.

Australia has a considerable ageing population. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) predicts that those aged 65 and over will compromise about 23-25% of our total population by the mid-2040s. There have been a number of reports about the economic impact of ageing in Australia; Economic Implications of an Ageing Australia and Caring for Older Australians, both released by the Productivity Commission. Another good set of reports are the Intergenerational Reports released by the Treasury. In Australia, health care expenditure is about 6% of total GDP, this is expected to rise to 10.3% in the mid 2040s. This is because as you get older, your cost of care increases. We may be living longer, but we are also more 'sick' in the sense that there are higher risks for illness and disabilities. Aged Care costs as a total of the GDP are also expected to increase.

The Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is also expected to fall by about 7% by mid 2040s IIRC. There will also probably be a fall in the number of aggregate hours we work as those aged 65+ tend to work part-time, if they do work at all. The LFPR for those aged 65+ is increasing, though it remains far below the main working age groups (15-64). In Australia, we have recently raised the age of availability for the pension to 67 which is set to come in, I think in 2017, and be phased in slowly.

This is just a brief summary I guess of the economic impact in Australia, I hope it will give you some guidance in regards to the US. But quickly, such long term trends should be taken with a grain of salt as they can be easily changed by small changes in demographic patterns such as mortality rate, fertility rate etc.

alienth · 6 months

Do you hate Australians or something?

dslme · 6 months

Damn. You live in my suburb.

dpspangler · 6 months

Don't mind me, just repping r/DunderMifflin.

Kivla · 6 months

My timetable looks like a hot mess - Literally ZERO of the subjects I intend to take up have their lectures and tutorials on the same day.

Driese · 6 months

I actually believe it is Chris Rockway NSFW

vteckickedin · 7 months

Reminds me of this

Though I think we're about the third lowest

planex · 7 months

It's like you're telling me to upvote this submission...

HorseFD · 7 months

It's a map of Australia, but with population determining size and area. Basically the higher the population, the larger the size. This map really emphasises how urbanised Australia is and how a large proportion of population live on the coast, particularly the east coast. IIRC Melbourne and Sydney account for 40% of the population, while the top 5 cities account for 60% overall. You can also see how isolated Perth really is, which I had never really considered that bad before. That little thin line between Perth and Adelaide shows how scarcely populated inner Australia is, with the circular bulge right after Adelaide being Alice Springs. WA is basically full of a whole lot of nothing (oh, except Perth).

Kivla

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login