Except that, again, you stop before the actual important part starts. In your example, you stop by the 4th generation when you're still in rising period because the mortality hasn't caught up yet.
Here's another example, but going much longer. Here's an example, going up to Gen 8:
Assumptions (to simplify):
- Women have all 1.5 children. I'll round up the number if it's a decimal, just to be nice and to prove my point further (so if we have 5 women, normally it would give 7.5 babies, but we will count as 8).
- No "no-family relations"
- Generation X will make children for Generation X + 1
- Generation X will die at Generation X + 4.
Here's are the details:
Generation 1: 100 new people (50 men, 50 women).
Generation 2: 1.5 * 50 babies are born = 75, bringing the population to 175. Out of those 75 new people, 37.5 are women (rounded up to 38).
Generation 3: 1.5 * 38 babies are born = 57, bringing the population to 232. Out of those 57 new people, 28.5 are women (rounded up to 29).
Generation 4: 1.5 * 29 babies are born = 43.5 (rounded up to 44), bringing the population to 276. Out of those 44 new people, 22 are women.
Now, so far, we agree the population is increasing steadily, and better than if the quality of life were poor and parents kept dying after having children. However, the following is the part you're missing:
Generation 5: 1.5 * 22 babies are born = 33, however Generation 1 is now completely dead (100 people), bringing the population to 276 + 33 - 100 = 209. Out of those 33 new people, 17 are women.
Generation 6: 1.5 * 17 babies are born = 26, however Generation 2 is now completely dead (75 people), bringing the population to 160. Out of those 26 new people, 13 are women.
Generation 7: 1.5 * 13 babies are born = 20, however Generation 3 is now completely dead (57 people), bringin the population to 123. Out of those 20 new people, 10 are women.
Generation 8: 1.5 * 10 babies are born = 15, however Generation 4 is now completely dead (44 people), bringing the population to 94. Out of those 15 people, 8 are women.
Do you start to see the pattern and the problem, now? Arriving at generation 8, you now have way less people than what you started with, and the problem keep getting worse and worse, cause you have fewer and fewer women.
With 1.5 natality, you can expect this community to completely collapse by Generation 15, where you're not even guarentee to have a new woman at all to continue the legacy.
If you lower the natality to 1 (what South Korea has), you get a complete eradication by generation 10.
Feel free to do the calculations with a fertility of 2, and you'll see, it magically equalise everything, because you guarentee 2 individuals will replace 2 dying parents (doesn't matter if they die in 5 years or in 100 years, they will die eventually, and needs to be replaced).
We know your example is flawed, because if you remove immigration from developed countries, they are all losing population, little by little, and not increasing like you claim. And now I've proved it mathematically as well.
Except you're missing one critical part:
It takes 2 parents. If you want your population to stabilize, you somehow need to replace those 2 parents with 2 new individuals, hence why we have the "2.1 children per woman" quota (the .1 is to counter-balance accidents, murders, etc. ).
If you look at your animal comparison, they are all above 2, even the lowest fertility due to high lifetime. That means that, under normal circumstances, they are guaranteed to have enough individuals to continue the cycle.
It doesn't matter if it takes 10 years or 50 years, the result is, if you have less children than parents, then eventually, you'll reach 0 population.
Making it "inconvenient" is far from enough though. You could argue the magazines era was pretty inconvenient (had to find someone able to get those, then find someplace to hide them everytime), that didn't stop many kids from trying.
Do you really trust schools and universities to have strong blockers, when you see the state of the modern education system? They generally have the worst IT support possible.
Some VPN are free, which is an even bigger danger, cause they are extremely questionable with terrible security (generally on purpose).
Phones can access WiFi and be used without data plans.
When I see some Redditors willing to travel just to give HRT and stuff to minors, I don't think granting access to porn is that far-fetched, especially when you consider how normalised it has become.
There is no need for this because PARENTAL CONTROLS EXIST.
To be honest, every year, it's becoming more and more impossible for parents to control anything.
Phone access? They are everywhere, and old / bad ones can be bought for cheap because most people only want the latest version and throw / sell their old ones.
Internet access? Yeah you can restrict your router, but internet is accessible almost everywhere now, school, universities, airports, libraries, or even the neighbor's unprotected WiFi. What's stopping a kid from using internet somewhere else, without the parent ever knowing about it?
Internet history? Again, if the kid is using something like a smartphone and 5G, or someone else's internet, it won't pass through your router, so you have no idea what site they got in.
Parental codes? They were always very easy to crack. An attentive children will easily spot which numbers the parent presses, or brute force it while the parent is busy somewhere else.
I'm not excusing the parents doing a poor job, but I know that if I were a father myself, I would have a LOT of troubles keeping the restrictions up and actually efficient (and that's coming from a computer guy / programmer).
And Israel will stand, because the God of Israel never loses.
And who is that "Israel"?
Matthew 2:6
But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.
This is talking about Jesus, when Herod was trying to find and kill Him. So Jesus is that shepherd, and will lead the people of Israel. And who's following Jesus? Jews, or Christians?
I find it amazing that people actually believe that the Israel in the New Testament, refers to a country created 1900 or so years after (which mean all people reading the Bible before this point would have been incredibly confused as to 'who' Israel really is). Country mostly made of people actually against Jesus and persecuting people following His teachings, when Jesus warned multiple times "He who is not with me is against me" ( Matthew 12:30 ).
okay, so you'd rather pay the up front cost of the game, plus deal with the pay-to-win schemes, the lootcrates, etc?
Where have you been living the past decade? Realistically, game companies will just add "pay per match" on top of the pile of other MTX already existing. You think it's either get A or get B, but we will just get both.
Fair, but EA/Activision does pay to maintain the servers
No one actually asked them to do so. Community servers existed since the dawn of online gaming, and people will gladly make their own servers for the game they love. On top of that, they generally have mods and admins looking at the game and banning cheaters on the fly, way more effective than any other automated anti-cheat.
While this is obviously going against the Bible itself like others pointed already, but there's this also:
"We must fight for more women as priests and pastors!"
"Ok, so are you going to do? Preach the Gospel to those who need to hear it? Show true servant-ship and support, and create unbreakable families? Be a modern day Joan of Arc and gather up Christians against current evil?"
"No, better than all that! We're going to light up some pink smoke!"
Even according to woke Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_video_games, Grand Strategy is at 7% female / 93% and Turn-Based Strategy at 11/89 male players from a 2017 study. So no, women don't play that at all, but they think that if they put women as leaders, it will somehow create interest.
You can quantittize anything and everything, but a change in the rate of flow of time is not what people would consider numbers
-
Absolutely don't care about "what people would consider". People still don't understand what AAA or Indie games mean, or the difference between a remake and a remaster. Because the number is hidden, doesn't mean it's not a number.
-
No, you can't quantitize everything. A game mechanic is made of numbers, but by itself, is not a number or even a math concept at all.
-
Take Pacman, and every level, it gets 5% faster (for everyone). This is easily measurable, even if the game doesn't show you the value.
-
Take Pacman, and each level, you introduce a different level design elements (like one-way passages, portals, boosts or slow-downs, or "pacgums" for the ghosts that will power them up instead of Pacman). Those mechanics do have numbers with them sure, but adding them to the game doesn't constitute an increas by number. You can't really tell how much harder the game got if you suddenly have one-way passages, contrary to a flat 5% speed increase.
-
If it's a level-based game of some sort, then it's incredibly stupid. The point of levelling up is to get better, if the enemies level up as well to compensate, then not only it destroys the point of levelling up, you also developed 2 features that fundamentally counter each-other. Feature creep and lack of foresight at their best.
-
Generally, I don't like it, especially the moment I actively notice it. It's why I don't like RE 4 (the original, don't know about the Remake). The loot you get is influenced by what you have. If you have plenty of ammo already, the game won't give you any. If you're low, it will massively increase the drop rate to make sure you're not soft-locked. That means you can actively use your best weapons constantly, because you're almost guaranteed to have enough ammo at all times anyway.
StarCraft is hard. In campaign you turn up the difficulty by increasing the speed. The AI will make largely the same decisions you just have less time to deal with it.
Funny, cause what you just said is exactly what difficulty by number is. It's not just about levels and gears stats.
is there any reason to believe it won’t become indistinguishable from humans at some point?
Yes, this is another important point. People keep saying you can use AI to detect if an image has been generated by AI, for instance, but it's false. Given enough time, it will be impossible to tell if something is true or not. This will, in turn, become an impossible situation for the justice system, where you can basically generate any kind of proof you want to put someone in jail, and no one will be able to determine if the proof are just extremely well-made fake or not.
All in all, AI is terrible. Until we have answers to those solutions, humanity should not play with AIs at all, but of course that won't stop anyone, the power gain is just too much.
I don't know where this is going. AI is a powerful force multiplier, but if more and more people outsource their writing to it
It's going to lead to the biggest competency crisis in history. Look at the internet, it's also a "powerful force multiplier", in theory, everyone could potentially become the next Mozart, Einstein, whatever. But in reality, instead of being a race to the top, it's a race to the bottom, with Tiktok nurse dance in the middle of a supposedly pandemic, and people eating tide pods. Same with AIs, the reality is, people don't want to do anything at all, not even think for themselves. It's not just about "outsourcing their writing", it's about outsourcing their own thinking and any slight mental effort.
Once AI becomes mainstream and available on all cellphones at all times, you can bet the average IQ is going to drop.
I'll be staying off AI 100% personally for those reasons. If you're not cautious at all times, it will replace your brain, little by little.
The only hope is that people will develop enough AI literacy to recognize automated content. We'll see if this happens.
People have turned off their pattern recognition. Half the population can't understand basic biological fact like men and women, something that was ingrained in human societies for millenniums, do you really think they will find the subtle difference between AI and human on a reddit post?
I do, honestly fill the gap that Overwatch left. In a way, it reminds of me Heroes of the Storm (which I played a lot, before the many Blizzard "incidents"), where they entered a saturated market by having more over the top or really weird characters.
I'm worried they will do the same errors as OW though, the balancing already seems quite off, and as a support main, it looks like the devs are really trying to make our life harder and harder.
"Don't let people die in medical poverty, please, except if they are Trump or MAGA, or if they don't think trans women are women, or if they don't take the covid jab, or if they dare think for themselves and reject what the media are telling us, or if they are white straight men, or if they don't support mutilating children, or if ..."
I don't think anti-piracy messaging has been that effective (certainly not more than anti-drug messaging)
Every time, I'll think back about this one parody in IT Crowd https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg
If you're that dumb at 20, you'll still be that dumb at 30, and 40, and 50... This is not an age problem.
Only people who actively give back to the society should be allowed to vote. If you're a net positive on all points for the country, I honestly don't care about your geography level (though I will still laugh at your stupid answer).
Also, fire all the teachers already, clearly the current education system is not working at all.
That was just to get him re-elected. They know the wind was changing directions super-fast, so they let Trump win to appease some of the tensions.