Interesting Shares

1058 readers

77 users here now

Share interesting articles, projects, research, pictures, or videos.

Please include a prefix in your title!

Prefixes for posts

Certain clients offer filters to make prefixes searchable. Photon (m.lemmy.zip) used for hyperlinks below:

Icon attribution

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

BrikoX

Demographics Professor Warns that by 2531, Everyone in Japan Will be Named Sato (www.spoon-tamago.com)

submitted 7 months ago by BrikoX to c/interestingshare

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Despite today's date, this is not an April Fool's prank. At a press conference in Tokyo last weekend, professor Hiroshi Yoshida from the Tohoku University Research Center for Aged Economy and Society, sounded the alarm bell for a looming crisis. By the year 2531, e

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Will the whole world be Wang after x million years?

No, because the paper is nonsense and the scientist is probably releasing it for political reasons. Wives being forced to take their husband's surnames do not directly contribute to a single surname taking over, since there's a proportionally equal chance that they're moving away from the Sato surname. The main issue that affects the odds is how many male kids the non-Satos have as well as societal pressures (like this one).

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The math is also wrong.

You can't apply exponential growth to the proportion of a total.

Growing from 1% to 2% (a 100% gain) is equally a reduction from 99% to 98%, a 1.01% drop.
Going from 99% to 100% (a 1.01% gain) is equally a reduction from 1% to 0%, an infinite drop.

Simple exponential modeling is the wrong tool.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Oh… he’s just doing an exponential growth model?? I have trouble understanding how this got traction at all then, he should be embarrassed. Maybe the delivery was tongue-in-cheek?

I assumed there was more interesting happening in that paper. How disappointing.

I assumed there was more behind that graph (I assumed he calculated the coefficient from something more interesting and just slapped it on a graph with like y = exp(\beta_0 x) for his news article)