What are linked? Education and birthrates? Healthcare and birthrates? Infant mortality and birthrates?
All three are true, lower infant mortality rates are generally the result of both education AND healthcare; and studies show, as demonstrated in my previous post, that lower infant mortality has a very strong correlation with lower birth rates.
No, YOU are wrong because you were affirming there is a causation from “lower infant children” to “lower birth rate”, without any source for this affirmation.
Lower infant mortality rate generally results in a lower birth rate. If you had actually bothered to read the abstracts posted you would have see that they are indeed credible sources for my statement.
I posted
Employing historical and recent data, this study indicates that as infant mortality decreases, birth rates also decline. Industrialized countries with low infant mortality show low birth rates, while developing countries with high infant mortality exhibit the highest birth rates. But some developing countries, including Sri Lanka, China, and Costa Rica, have seen a decline in birth rates, following successful efforts at curbing infant mortality. Studies show that as infant mortality begins to decrease, fertility rates follow within 10 years.
The linked article says essentially the same thing.
This is exactly as wrong as saying “wardec nerf have killed eve online” without any source.
I’ve never said that, I would put it as IMHO wardec nerfs dilute eve online.
and sorry, look at the fig 4 without the red line and tell me there is a “certain correlation between fertility rate and infant mortality rate”
You are aware that the source of the graph is the UN, the source of the article is one of the oldest and most respected educational and research institutes in the world, and above all that the red line is a trend line?
Which incidentally demonstrates a trend showing lower infant mortality has a very strong correlation with a lower birth rate, at least in Sub Saharan Africa (fertility is the term used in the article)
First it does not change the fact that you affirmed things without a source. So you were wrong for this reason anyhow.
Secondly just look at the fig 4 and tell me how they decided there was a correlation. I seriously doubt this article seriousness.
So now you may want to lok at this article which, on the opposite, precises how he can affirm if there is a correlation or not, to affirm eg
Using province level data froma variety of countries, van de Walle computes the correlation of the change infertility with the change in infant mortality during the period 1870 to 1930. Ifinfant mortality declines were a major cause of fertility decline, we wouldexpect the correlation to be positive. However, the results are mixed at best.In most cases, the estimated correlation is not significantly different fromzero; the few significantly positive estimates are offset by others which aresignificantly negativ
It’s an unhealthy thing to ask someone for their sources when they make financial statement for ccp and state them as fact? This is some fascinating logic.
That straw won’t do you any good here, that’s a last resort tactic; besides I subsequently provided 2 credible sources.
Secondly just look at the fig 4 and tell me how they decided there was a correlation. I seriously doubt this article seriousness.
That article would have been A: Vetted and B: Peer Reviewed before being published, and the source is very credible, being the website of the University of Oxford.
We’re agreed that the other is wrong. Discourse terminated.
It was not published. So no peer review. Also it does not pretend to be an article, but a “fact sheet” that actually does provide opinion without source.
You did not. I said the progress is constant, so according to you there should be a constant increase. And a function that increases proportionally to value is called exponential (that’s the definition), with its increase also being exponential. So yes, according to you the increase should be exponential .
You were claiming there should always be a “significant” impact. If the increase is not proportional to the original quantity then you can’t affirm it’s “significant”. That is, you need a threshold of increase that must be met, as percentage of the original value, to have a significant impact.
So yes, by saying the impact must be “significant” you mean that there is a minimum % increase to be met.
That is, proportional to the original value.
That is, the value observed is exponential since the progress in health care is proportional.
Sorry I skipped those explanations, I thought it was obvious, it was not.
That’s the PvP from after all the cool stuff got shutdown.
I didn’t like that PvP either…
PvP used to be a lot of fun in this game.
The PvP community I loved probably died before you tried the game.
We used to pursue wars in whatever ship it took to inspire a fight.
I’ve camped targets in Merlin’s to get them to fight… and I’ve lost doing it.
The mechanics since early 2012 drove all of my ilk from the game.
We were fun. We were about fun. And we were good for the game.
Personally, I’ve always specialized in T1 frigates. Even noobs used to line up to fight me.
I can post killmails from wars where I fought fleets by myself.
I remember a war where I fought them in a crow ( they brought a fleet). I killed one, they killed my crow. Then I came back in a hawk… and killed a merlin, Moa, and Rokh (true solo, not that sissy neutral rep stuff).
The guy who was in the rokh didn’t like me after that, but I ended on good terms with several of those guys.
And… they undocked and fought. They had an experience. They had a story. And after a bit of instruction… their next war probably went differently.
Statistical significance isn’t a percentage of the original value, it’s a factor of the standard deviation.
For example, if I have a result that is 3 standard deviations away from my starting value… there is a ~99.7% chance that something is different (and 3/1000 chance that nothing is different).
Standard deviations are just slices of a Gaussian curve which measure random variation.
When you talk statistical significance, you have to assess the probability that your result is significant.
Your milkshake isn’t bringing scientific rigor to the argument…
After reading your posts… I honestly don’t think you have any substantial understanding of the material you’re throwing around.
Doesn’t faction warfare offer some of the “bar brawl” style of PVP that you seem to be describing?
Also, I sometimes find lowsec systems both inside and outside of the faction warfare zones that have over 100 players in local. Sometimes this happens on weekends but also on weekdays. I’m not sure that PVP opportunities are as hard to find as people sometimes complain.
Yeah, I agree that there is generally not a lot of verbal interaction in FW, or in a lot of other PVP for that matter. I’ve sometimes found exceptions, however.
One of the more likely interaction scenarios in FW zones is if you keep focusing on particular systems that are more actively contested / near to being lost. These tend to attract some of the better FW players since they are looking for action. Some of them are more likely to get chatty if you have fought them several times already.
Also, there are fairly active systems in lowsec that are frequently gatecamp sites or are near such systems. Whether or not these are in FW zones, the local players tend to be more chatty since they typically spend a lot of time there and player traffic is higher overall.
