[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 134 KB, 540x1391, 1306272749177.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3578512 [Reply] [Original]

http://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_of_cities_and_corporations.html

Hey /sci/ is this bullshit?

>> No.3580610

?

>> No.3580619

>>3578512
Watching, brb in 17 min.

>> No.3580641

>>3578512

The concept that cities have a lot of mathematics at work behind them is not bullshit. This man, however, is bullshit.

A professor at my university is currently writing a book on the mathematics of cities, and from what he's shown me (just a few pages of what he was working on), it's FAR more than the bullshit high school math like this guy is presenting.

>> No.3580704

>>3580619
I'm back.

Studying cities and society seriously and scientificially is something that is sorely needed. I think his analysis is powerful, but it is also simplistic, and other confounding variables in the dynamics of human societies should not be neglected without their contribution being quantified. Culture, socioeconomic systems, changing population demographics (such as Japan struggling with an aging population), etc. A lot of very practical things are not very strongly affected by these things (like the number of gas stations in a city), but there are quite a few things that may be strongly influenced, and we shouldn't assume all human cities are equal in everything but population.

We should also not that pretty much all the scaling laws he points out are a good argument in FAVOR of urbanization, as far as I can tell. Crime may be an exception.

But then he starts talking about collapse.
>Malthusian reasons
What the fuck is this shit. Population growth is stabilizing and tending towards zero because of urbanization. Total fertility is decreasing worldwide as a strong function of urbanization, and almost all the world's remaining growth is in places which have not yet modernized. We're set to have a peak population of 9-10 billion shortly after 2050 and then go into decline. See these:
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

His methods and data are powerful, but he seems to be completely ignoring trends in population growth.

>> No.3580717

>>3578512
>TED
>bullshit

Pick one.

>> No.3580734

>>3580717
TED talks generally have great quality. But you should not turn off your brain filter.
>>3580704

>> No.3580751

>>3580717
TED talks are dependent on the speaker, not the conference. There are a bunch of fucking bullshit talks at TED, like all of the feminist garbage.

>> No.3580774

TED is so "accomplished baby boomer" shit.

>> No.3580793

That's so bad.
I closed after 3 minutes.

Whatever it is - it's bullshit, he is retarded.

>> No.3580799

>>3580774
That is not true at all.

>> No.3580807

>>3580774
Some of it is quite good. But not all of it. It's a strong function of who's speaking.

>> No.3580820

>>3580807
>Some of it is quite good.

I'll promise not to think of killing you if you can tell me the difference between "good" and "quite good", and why you feel the need to say it? What's next?

>"Oh, it's rather quite beautiful, don't you agree?"
DIE!

>> No.3580830

>>3580820
I meant it as a slightly stronger modifier than "pretty good". Above "quite good" would be "really good".

I dislike needlessly flowery language too, but surely twitter-speak is worse?

>> No.3580836
File: 103 KB, 600x384, Suicide-01[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3580830
>slightly stronger

>surely

>> No.3580844

>>3580836
LOL, OK bro. Enjoy being unable to express yourself clearly and precisely.

>> No.3580848

>ted talks
~90% chance that this is pseudo-scientific garble full of holes that never gets to the point.

Should I watch?

>> No.3580849

>>3580844
Enjoy emitting a hackneyed and dubious sense of self.

>> No.3580870

>>3580849
I think you're just adding adjectives that don't apply now.

I'm sorry you think I'm stuck up or elitist or something just because I use nuanced words when they better express what I'm trying to say, but I'm not being wordy to sound smart.

>> No.3580876

>These data points all lie on this line, but the slope is less than 1, so we call it sublinear.

LOL

>> No.3580914

Allow me to play double advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go.
Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts, instead of making a half-harded effort. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like its a peach of cake.