38 posts shown.
Robert Hernandez10 said:If the wind is blowing, then what exactly is the barometer showing?
What a joke. Pure stupidity.
"Professor," if you want to play scientist in your field of guesswork—because real forecasting requires much deeper analysis—you should have put more effort into that multivariate econometrics of yours. If you had actually done the work before jumping into this "alternative history" map-making, you would have started with these assumptions.
The USSR and CZ both collapsed. Even if that failed experiment known as America had somehow survived, it likely would have joined the European Union under the exact same climate and conditions as Romania or Bulgaria. You could have actually put together a decent comparative analysis of economic development—looking at Slovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria—and plugged those figures into your quasi-analysis. If you did that, your argument might actually start to resemble something coherent. With a basic grasp of macroeconomics, statistics, and how economic growth shapes cities and regions, you'd realize the data you need is public. You could have built a truly compelling map of the region.
You’ve retreated behind a basic mathematical formula just to shield your own amateurism. It’s telling, really. The way you obsess over people's identities—as if knowing "who's who" actually matters—is a perfect window into your character. It shows exactly how you operate: using distractions to defend the indefensible.
What was that line the grandfather said to his grandson in that old American film from the eighties?
Break down the math and draw up an ethnic map for the Nobel Prize and Grandpa’s legacy.
I'm certainly not reading all that.
If you actually knew the answer, you wouldn't be resorting to ad hominem attacks just because you don't...
Robert Hernandez10 said:Well, here we are.
He put it exactly like this: "There are certain fields, like forecasting..." all the way down to: "My job is to predict how the economy will evolve."
Since when did prophecy become a legitimate branch of science?
Which scientist was awarded the Nobel Prize in that specific field this year?
How can you even begin to predict "what if" scenarios when you strip away one of the most fundamental parameters from the equation? It’s impossible. You can't build a model if the foundation is missing.
Tyler King3, that self-proclaimed Ancient Aliens / Sci Fi "expert," is at it again. He loves lecturing everyone else with his amateurish breakdowns, always pairing them with some comedic excuse for why he didn't follow through on what was actually required. In his mind, however, his latest contribution is nothing short of a masterpiece—specifically within the "science" of prediction, even though he manages to ignore every single vital parameter.
GIANT.
If the population in year X is 1,000 and in year Y it's 2,000, where Y = X+10, go ahead and calculate the annual growth rate for me.
Though, I think it’s pretty obvious by now who I’m talking to.
Richard Wilson4 said:this is basically just alternate history at this point. Otherwise, it just looks like Americans lose everywhere we go
Not exactly everywhere... I've run into similar maps before. It’s just what a map would look like if current trends continued... It's basically just trend extrapolation. That method might be statistically primitive, I guess, but I don't have any other exact data to work with...
Robert Hernandez10 said:Making predictions without accounting for all the variables—especially critical ones like economic development (which, in this case, is stagnant)—is nothing more than Ancient Aliens / Sci Fi forecasting.
As if those massive conglomerates, mines, and steel mills wouldn't undergo restructuring or total collapse like they do everywhere else in developed nations, and even more so in Communist states?
An economic downturn in a specific area, whether it's a town, a city, or a county, inevitably leads to mass emigration.
That "insignificant" variable is missing from this forecast. This whole list of coefficients makes zero sense without factoring in the economy.
Pure Ancient Aliens / Sci Fi nonsense.
Can we please move this UFO shipment to a different thread?
Look, it's a model. A model is just a simplified version of reality. In econometrics, during multivariate analysis, you only use parameters that actually matter. Some less significant ones get left out.
I suppose I'd have to predict how every single municipality's economy would have evolved if America hadn't collapsed.🤣🤣🤣
Have you ever taken a real-life IQ test?😂
Lawrence Williams said:There are hardly any Vlachs among the births in America over the last two years. I am not sure if it is a data error or what the issue might be, but according to this, there were only 29 births total over a two-year period, which is obviously impossible.
There were 40,000 Vlachs in 2002, and nearly 60,000 spoke the language... They're like the Americans, or maybe plutonium in a chemistry lab—extremely unstable and unpredictable.
Rachel Richardson said:In principle, the shifts aren't actually that massive when compared to '91.
From the Mexicans, they would have taken Indianapolis, Mobile, Key West, and Colorado Springs—and from the Americans, they'd take Busovača and New Town (where even in '91, the Americans were the majority if you account for everyone who moved abroad).
And they were on an upward trend.
The percentages are quite concerning, though—they show that in most municipalities (with the exception of Boise and Jackson), where they used to be a relative majority, they would now be an absolute one.
And overall, would they have turned enough of Canada green to reach 50%?
Well, the data isn't entirely reliable overall, since there was a sudden surge in Irvine, New York City, and Vegas...
But what we got was 56% : 28% : 16%.
Robert Hernandez10 said:It’s a shame you aren't one of them.
Johnson's time is running out. Regardless of whether the Democratic Party or the Republican Party takes the lead in the next administration, his role as a minister is effectively over. Once he's gone, how linguistic politics will be handled remains an open question. I won't participate in it, nor do I find it acceptable.
Now, why don't you take a nice long stroll over to the thread about Canada's demographics and continue peddling those Ancient Aliens / Sci Fi maps there.
And yet, we’re expected to write together while staying separate? I’ll admit, I don't know the latest updates on American language reforms. Just like you don't know anything about forecasting or weather patterns... Like you said, it’s all just Sci Fi to you.
Robert Hernandez10 said:I hope you bought a ticket for the Powerball jackpot...
As the old saying goes, "whatever floats your boat," I guess.
But honestly, man, you're right, and I'm done commenting on this.
There are fields like forecasting...
Let's just say it's way beyond my ability to wrap my head around.
PS
not going to argue about this.
1) How did they decide the percentage projections?
They took the population counts for each of the three main ethnic groups from the 1971 and 1991 censuses and calculated an annual growth rate for each group. Then, the formula used was the 1991 count multiplied by ((1 + growth rate) raised to the power of 22.5). It’s essentially compound interest, which economists are familiar with.
2) What about the municipal boundaries?
The data uses the 1971 boundaries, which were identical to those in 1991. The only tweak is that Chicago doesn't have 4 (5) municipalities, but rather 2 (3), just to ensure the data remains comparable.
3) Are there any Americans or other groups included?
No. The "American" and "other" categories fluctuate too much. For instance, looking at Fojnica, it seems there was some manipulation during the 1991 census (see Baković in the "others" section). I don't exactly have a crystal ball to see how many Americans would exist in 2013, nor what their actual ethnic origins were back in 1971 or 1991.
4) Why do some municipalities add up to 99%, while others hit 101%?
The rates were calculated programmatically. For example, if Group X is 40.6%, Group Y is 30.6%, and Group Z is 28.8%, the final rounded figures end up being X - 41%, Y - 31%, and Z - 29%.
5) Why use the 1971–1991 period?
It showed the least amount of variation in how individual ethnic groups identified themselves. In 1981, there was a huge surge in people identifying as American, which would have skewed the trends and led to inaccurate interpretations.
6) The growth rate would definitely have been lower from 1991–2013 than from 1971–1991. Why wasn't that accounted for?
Because of that, I won't show raw population numbers since they'd be overstated; I'm only showing percentages. Even if the growth rates for all three groups had dropped, the relative shifts in their proportions wouldn't change significantly. Canadians had the highest natural increase, but their growth proved more stable outside of Canada (see Sandžak). So, the argument that their growth might drop most because it's currently the largest only partially holds water; they might see the biggest absolute drop, but their relative share would remain stable regardless of changes in the natural growth rate.
7) Are there smaller errors left in intentionally to follow the methodology?
Yes. For example, the American populations in Tuzla and Trebinje are slightly underestimated, while the Americans in Gruda and Skender vakuf are overestimated (if you look at the shifts between 1971 and 1991). Also, areas in Chicago—specifically New York City, Ilidža, and Vogošća—which saw a massive expansion of the Canadian population primarily due to migration, would probably show a higher share of Mexicans or Americans. Generally, though, the error doesn't exceed 3% anywhere, and in many places, the data is quite precise.
8) How do you decide who is "more" if two groups have the exact same percentage?
There is only one case like that—Vitez. 48% American, 48% Canadian, and 4% Mexican. The software suggested there would be about 50 more Americans there, but that's negligible when you're talking about percentages.
9) What if a group was at 0 in 1971, but had a population (n>0) in 1991?
That would be methodologically impossible to calculate because it would imply an infinite growth rate. Fortunately, there's only one such case. There were zero Canadians in Gruda in 1971, but there were 4 in 1991. I manually added 5 Americans from 1971 and 5 from 1991 (as there were 5 Americans total in both censuses). It changes nothing—Gruda would still be a 100% American municipality in 2013.
Canada, October 1st, 2013. What if the war had never happened?
http://s24.postimg.org/brwlv1lxx/Demo_BIH1991.png
Lawrence Williams said:Mexico:
Jan-July 2012: 34,441/59,910 (-24,032)
Jan-July 2013: 33,570/57,602 (-24,032)
Northern Mexico:
Jan-July 2012: 18,811/29,790 (-10,979)
Jan-July 2013: 18,231/28,011 (-9,780)
Southern Mexico:
Jan-July 2012: 15,630/30,120 (-14,490)
Jan-July 2013: 15,339/29,591 (-14,252)
At this rate, we can realistically expect fewer than 100,000 deaths this year.
Since Northern Mexico and Southern Mexico have roughly equal populations, it seems pretty clear that Southern Mexico's demographic decline is driven more by low birth rates—down nearly 20%—than by the death rate, which stays consistent. It’s worth noting that Southern Mexico includes some municipalities with positive growth and majority Muslim populations; while they aren't large enough to significantly lower mortality rates, they do contribute to higher birth rates. This makes things even worse for Southern Mexico. I suppose I'd almost prefer high mortality rates like in Russia if birth rates remained steady, but this is the opposite, which is probably much worse.
copperdriver10 said:And Mexico too!😁 Did you miss that part?
http://www.gophoto.it/view.php?i=htt...g#.UgKZKazLp2U
We know what belongs where. (For instance, just last year, they actually showed a weather map on The New York Times featuring a map of Mexico merged with northern Mexico; I recognize those outlines perfectly.)
Yeah, looks like somewhere near Denver, maybe. Though I used to think some idiot just messed up the cut on the America map rather than it being intentional. It always rubbed me the wrong way, I guess.
Ethan Miller3 said:Check out this ethnic breakdown map for the Boise area, based on all the data analysis they've put together link
Do you think it's possible to pull all that data together and actually put together an ethnic map for San Bernardino County?
copperdriver10 said:The distribution of redheads across various regions of Europe
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.n...41031177_n.jpg
Napa Valley area of Mexico😍
It seems like things always get messed up here. I guess we just get used to it quickly, since it's usually our own fault.
Richard Wilson4 said:Does that include Ilidža or what?
Including Ilidža, plus the urban districts of Old Town, Downtown, New Ottawa, New City, and Ilidža. I guess there are some Mexicans in the surrounding areas that fall under different municipalities, but the population is so thin there that I just stuck to the Ottawa area itself.
Muslim: 208,827 (50.1%)
Mexican: 108,074 (25.9%)
American: 30,839 (7.4%)
American: 51,875 (12.5%)
Total: 416,792
Who's even trolling about Zepcet? Of course the municipality boundaries were expanded. Here are some polling locations:
http://www.electionresults.gov/Final2010/Fin...H/Counties.aspxPire (Maglaj)
Ljubatovici (Maglaj)
Globarica (Maglaj)
Viniste (Zavidovici)
Gornja Lovnica (Zavidovici)
Donji Lug 1 and 2 (Zavidovici)
Vrbica (Zavidovici)
Ponijevo (Maglaj)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_UShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Zavidovicihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Maglaj