Looking into this now. Thanks for the helpful comment.

No unarmed social worker is gonna want to solo an armed person having a mental breakdown. They're gonna request armed officers as backup.

Y'all mf need calculus 1

One who knows they're way less likely to get stabbed if the person isn't freaking the fuck out because 3 angry cops are pointing guns at them?

[removed]

Growth rate should peak and decline before population peaks. Unless there is some cataclysmic event that drives it down suddenly, like a nuclear war.

Someone could argue that there is a time interval that when tracked in nano seconds displays a sudden drop in growth rate before those hypothetical millions perished, but this is more pedantic than practical and wouldn't give much insight into how society was changing at that time.

OK, that’s it. I’m putting it on my BINGO card…

There is a discrete aspect both in time and in number of humans (not to mention non-linearities to rates due to catastrophes) so it might not be exactly 0 over some time interval, but yes, there should be some identifiable relative maxima in population near rate ~0.

>I'm not commenting on what the article was stating

Then why did you say:

>No, they're saying the rate at which the population will grow will peak at 8.6 billion people LMAO.

​

> just pointing out that growth rate and population total are two separate things.

Which is what the first person in this thread said when you got snarky with them. The headline says rate, but the article clearly talks about the overall population, despite the word rate being incorrectly used.

The rate peaked already. It's in decline now. The article is about the population peaking in 2050 and then declining for the second half of the century to 7 billion by 2100. Total, not the rate.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

So the growth rate (first derivative of population change?) is expected to be its maximum value at population= 8.6 billion?

If your photos are publicly available, or you give them to someone else (Facebook, Instagram, etc) you no longer have a privacy interest in them. When you willingly give something to someone else, it is no longer yours. You can have an agreement (civil contract) that you expect that company to keep things private, but they can still voluntarily give them to the police. Your remedy would be to civilly sue them for breach of your contract, but said photos can still be used against you.

> Apparently they got more than twice the amount of people successfully rehabbed (Well, not returning to jail) on drugs compared to dealers.

it doesn't help that it's really fucking hard to get hired as a convict and dealers are leaving prison with a skillset they know they can make money with

[removed]

Of course they respond to calls that don't require armed escort, which is why I want them to respond to MORE calls like that (welfare checks, etc.).

The calls you described, they will go to without escorts. If someone, however, calls about a person passed out on a sidewalk or an elderly person missing an appointment, they will NOT respond. If there's a mental health crisis (no weapon), they will NOT respond. That means police are sent, which for many people, is triggering and makes the situation much worse.

After that, the mass die offs from Heat, Drought, and Famine will sharply reduce the population, and that assumes no big wars over water.

No. They resist changing dispatch protocol. They don't want to respond to mental health crises or welfare checks (that don't require armed responses, which is why I wish they'd go).

Okay, the increase of retirement age was bad but THIS MEANS WAR!

I'm not commenting on what the article was stating, just pointing out that growth rate and population total are two separate things.

Colorado just had to retire a bunch of dogs because they were trained on marijuana.

[removed]