[RD] Daily Graphs and Charts

[classical_hero]

Special Broadcasting Service. They're a second public broadcaster in addition to the ABC with a specific focus on being multilingual and multicultural. They run a big subtitling operation, they run a network of multilingual radio, show news broadcasts from lots of countries. It's the only tv network where you'll see many non white faces and hear other accents in the news broadcasts. They've also been pretty experimental as a result of their pretty free charter. For example South Park was a big hit hit for them. And they show a lot of soccer.

Sex Before Soccer. They have a pay tv channel called World Movies and it is the only channel that shows R rated movies besides the adults channels, which are extra, unlike World Movies, which is part of the Movies package.

 

[Fr8monkey]

I am who I am

And now we have complete morons trying to reverse that.

 

[Borachio]

Every couple of years I have this conversation with random strangers:

STRANGER: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were someone else.
ME: That's OK. I am someone else.

 

[Paul in Saudi]

From the UK's National Health Service;

 

[Monsterzuma]

it's OK to have a little more war. it's fractionally not a big deal.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. But if instead we have a graphic of avoidable causes of death, doesn't our perspective change a bit?

 

[Heretic_Cata]

I always said there should be an "Undetermined events" awareness program.

 

[plarq]

Yes. But if instead we have a graphic of avoidable causes of death, doesn't our perspective change a bit?

Somehow most of causes can be avoided by eating more healthier, exercise more, and do medical screening annually.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes. But if instead we have a graphic of avoidable causes of death, doesn't our perspective change a bit?

They're all avoidable, it's a question of when they become so!

 

[Terxpahseyton]

If by avoided you mean delayed, you would be right.
x-post

 

[plarq]

If by avoided you mean delayed, you would be right.
x-post

Death can not be avoided, but some of death causes can be avoided.

 

[Samez]

Is the UK currently at war at all? Troops withdrawing from Afghanistan and some airstrikes in Syria and Iraq or did I miss something?

 

[Borachio]

I always said there should be an "Undetermined events" awareness program.

Wut? I've a feeling you must mean something, but I'm not sure what it is.

Somehow most of causes can be avoided by eating more healthier, exercise more, and do medical screening annually.

Well... er... yes?

They're all avoidable, it's a question of when they become so!

Yes. But let's put to one side the possibility of immortality just for a moment.

If by avoided you mean delayed, you would be right.
x-post

I agree. But I don't think "avoided" does mean "delayed". I like to avoid having road accidents, but I don't mean by it that I like to delay them.

Death can not be avoided, but some of death causes can be avoided.

Yes indeed. And that's just my point. War, and road accidents are eminently avoidable, imo.

Is the UK currently at war at all? Troops withdrawing from Afghanistan and some airstrikes in Syria and Iraq or did I miss something?

I don't know. It may, technically, not be at war with anyone just at the moment. If past experience is anything to go by, it won't be for long, though.

 

[KMRblue1027]

They're all avoidable, it's a question of when they become so!

When mind uploading is invented?

 

[El_Machinae]

No, when an affordable cure is created for any specific condition. Something else will crop up, but if it's based in biology, it can be fought too. It's not necessary to be overly optimistic to recognize that any specific condition can be (eventually) cured.

Borachio: When it comes to degenerative diseases, 'delayed' is the best way to look at it, actually. Each disease is concomitantly grinding us down, just at different rates. The best you can do is push each of them forwards in time (either individually, or in groups). Now, there's no biological upper limit on how each one can be delayed, but there's a practical limit.

For example, there's a bit of a sea change going on in prostate cancer. While there's a 1 in 8 chance of getting it, there's only a 1 in 28 chance of dying from it. In other words, if your prostate cancer grows slowly enough, then something else will get you first.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Death can not be avoided, but some of death causes can be avoided.

Because something else killed you earlier.

Is the UK currently at war at all? Troops withdrawing from Afghanistan and some airstrikes in Syria and Iraq or did I miss something?

The war on terror never ends.
Never.

I agree. But I don't think "avoided" does mean "delayed". I like to avoid having road accidents, but I don't mean by it that I like to delay them.

But in a way you did.
As your life span increases the probability of you dieing in a car crash approaches 1. No matter what you do, technically.
So when you have succeeded in avoiding death by car crash, another not less accurate way to phrase it would be to say that you have delayed death by car-crash sufficiently long enough until something else managed to kill you.

 

[Borachio]

As your life span increases the probability of you dieing in a car crash approaches 1. No matter what you do, technically.
So when you have succeeded in avoiding death by car crash, another not less accurate way to phrase it would be to say that you have delayed death by car-crash sufficiently long enough until something else managed to kill you.

That's certainly one way of looking at things, I'll grant you. It's not the usual one, though. The longer I live, the greater the chance of me being killed by a full stop in a novel by Jeffrey Archer. (Assuming it contains some deadly volatile poison that's given off the moment I open the book. I mention Jeffrey Archer because he's probably the novelist I'm least likely ever to read again.)

As for whether the UK is at war at the moment. I think, on reflection, it is. The RAF is flying sorties against IS as far as I recall. That counts as being at war.

 

[Monsterzuma]

employment/population ratio

7 years into the supposed recovery, american employment has still barely risen at all from it's 2009 bottom.

regular employment figures obscure this by not counting discouraged workers or early retirees as unemployed.

 

[El_Machinae]

As your life span increases the probability of you dieing in a car crash approaches 1. No matter what you do, technically.
So when you have succeeded in avoiding death by car crash, another not less accurate way to phrase it would be to say that you have delayed death by car-crash sufficiently long enough until something else managed to kill you.

This is actually mistaken, statistically. In order for a risk to asymptote to trend towards one, the risk needs to stay stable (or increase) over time. So, if you've a 30% of a car crash this year, next year, the year after, etc. then you asymptote towards one.

But if you iteratively decrease your risks, e.g., lower the speed limit in the 50's, put in ABS in the 90's, crashbags in the '00's, collision avoidance in the '10's, robot cars in the 20's, etc. then your absolute risk doesn't trend towards one, but towards some lower number. The per-year risk-of-death needs to iteratively drop over time.

This is a similar mistake made as was made in another thread.

Just like your odds of rolling a '6' on a six-sided die increases as you increase the number of rolls. The asymptote of such an activity is certainly one.

But, if you sequentially replace your die with larger-numbered dice (d8, d12, d20, uh .., d100, etc.), the odds of rolling a six do not approach 1.

Even if the number of rolls increases between swapping, it doesn't approach 1.

But, there's a common-sense intuition here. Any specific threat can be brought down to a risk of zero. If you survive to that point, then your odds of death (from that threat) become zero. They don't continue to trend towards one.

 

[nc-1701]

This is actually mistaken, statistically. In order for a risk to asymptote to trend towards one, the risk needs to stay stable (or increase) over time. So, if you've a 30% of a car crash this year, next year, the year after, etc. then you asymptote towards one.

But if you iteratively decrease your risks, e.g., lower the speed limit in the 50's, put in ABS in the 90's, crashbags in the '00's, collision avoidance in the '10's, robot cars in the 20's, etc. then your absolute risk doesn't trend towards one, but towards some lower number. The per-year risk-of-death needs to iteratively drop over time.

This is a similar mistake made as was made in another thread.

False.

In order for your absolute risk to converge to one the sum of the risks in the tail has to be zero. In other words for any epsilon>0 there needs to be a time t such that the probability of dying after time t is less than epsilon.

This is a very strong condition, and is entirely infeasible in real life. While the math for convergence can work this is definitely a case where intuition would be correct.

Spoiler :

Yes I realize the series will be weird to calculate since we are dealing with conditional probabilities, but the fundamentals still apply.