Normally relegated to the Herald Sun, the logic flaws in this article this morning astound me:

The bureau estimates that Melbourne’s population grew by 74,713 in the year to last June and, on revised figures, by 74,791 the year before that.

Hmmm ok, so that’s a fair few bodies. How’s that fit the bigger picture?

Bureau of Statistics figures show the city is on track to have 4 million people by the end of this year, after its population growth increased to an annual rate of 2 per cent.

OK, some context. 2%. Sounds like a lot.

Melbourne’s population growth last year far outpaced all other major Australian cities.

Hmmm… being the 2nd biggest city in the country, and a cheaper one than the largest, this isn’t that surprising. Still, good to know. I wonder how we compare quantitatively…

Sydney’s population grew by 55,047 or 1.3 per cent, Brisbane by 43,404 (2.3 per cent) and Perth by 43,381 (2.8 per cent).

Hmmm… maybe they mean more net peeps = good mkay? Out-pacing? Doesn’t look like it on population growth… maybe they mean something else…:

The label of Australia’s fastest-growing city might once have been one for which Melbourne yearned…

Sorry boys. Still is! Of the four cities listed, Melbourne has the 2nd slowest rate of growth. In order to “outpace” something, you need to move faster over time with respect to the thing being measured. Population Growth rate (i.e. expressed as a percentage) is a measure of acceleration, not displacement! (Wiki article)

If this were a physics problem, you’d be working with the following data:

Starting Point
Melbourne: 3,900,000 people
Sydney: 4,400,000 people
Brisbane: 1,950,000 people
Perth: 1,600,000 people

t = t + 1
After one year (unit of time), you’d have:
Melbourne: 3,900,000 + 74,791 = 3,974,791 people
Sydney: 4,400,000 + 55,047 = 4,455,047 people
Brisbane: 1,950,000 + 43,404 = 1,993,404 people
Perth: 1,600,000 + 43,381 = 1,643,381 people

Calculate Velocity:
The velocity of each of these movements is: (trivial, as the unit and quantum of time is the same in each above)
Melbourne: 74,791/year
Sydney: 55,047/year
Brisbane: 43,404/year
Perth: 43,381/year
Of these, Melbourne certainly has the greatest velocity (net displacement over time). It might be the fastest moving (if all were on the same starting line and you are measuring only net increase in numbers).

Calculate Acceleration:
However, it is not the fastest growing: (from the article):
Melbourne: 2%
Sydney: 1.3%
Brisbane: 2.3%
Perth: 2.8%

Conclusion:
At present rates, Melbourne will never catch up to Sydney, and Perth will eventually catch up to Melbourne (in approx 115 years).

Moving on to the rest of the article:

In a national perspective, it was the year of the west. Perth added almost as many people as Brisbane, growing by 43,381 people or 2.8 per cent. And south-western Western Australia grew more quickly than either the Sunshine Coast or the Gold Coast, its population rising by almost 9000 or 3.9 per cent.

Cairns had the fastest growth rate of the big regional cities, 4.1 per cent, but has since gone into a deep recession with the loss of Asian tourists.

Ha! Now we find that not only did Melbourne’s growth not even outpace Sydney or Brisbane, but it’s failed to keep up with three separate parts of Queensland as well! Seriously, the entire contention of this article is absolutely bogus!

The most surprising thing here is not that journalists have zero understanding of basic mathematical concepts. No, the most surprising thing is they then get the concept of pace/rate of growth right in the second page of the same article! (i.e. the Cairns quote above). So we’ve got a situation where Cairns with a 4.1% rate of growth has been “outpaced” by Melbourne’s 2% rate of growth. Someone had better teach me more quantum mechanics fast – I’m trying to reconcile two parallel universes here!

Of course, it’s possible they mean that the rate of growth of Melbourne’s rate of growth is out-pacing other cities, but that’s neither in the data nor the argument presented in the article.

Reminds me of Bob Cringely’s excellent post on the bailout of the US banks, back when he was writing for PBS.

Gotta love XKCD… except this particular comic bugs me. A veteran scrabble (tm, c, r, wheres-my-capital-letter get-lost-and-die-under-a-torrent-of-lawyers-scrabulous all-rights-reserved-hasbro) player would never play OSTRICH for a mere 13 points, not even making a second word and destroying the beautiful bingo-potential set of {O, S, T, R, I, L} (or even more potent 5-letter subsets thereof).

A veteran player might play a small word to keep the bingo potential and get rid of the less-valuable C, e.g. COL forming HI & LI for 17 points. A small score, but good strategic play. A less-experienced player may make HISTORIC, using up the mid-right triple for 42 points and still leaving {L,T,S}. Not bad. Heck, even CHI if they liked the prospect of keeping their other 6 letters (but there are plenty of more valuable non-bingo moves, letter turnover is good).

A seasoned strategist would spot the morphological possibilities and may eventually come up with COISTRIL (thanks to a decent medieval vocab) for 63 points. A zoologist might end up with TROCHILS for 64, but that’s possibly a long shot.

However, even a superfluous superficial (although the former typing slip makes it seem more erudite ) knowledge of Roman History would instantly reveal the prospect of LICTORS in no less than 7 locations on the board ranging from 64 to 71 points. (If you’re struggling to find the 71, yes CH is a valid word).

So CLITORIS is only the 3rd-best possible word (9th move) on sheer points alone. How much one adds for amusement factor is a separate issue

I had 24 lictors in a past life.

DRK

P.S. In case you missed it, all XKCD comics have a final comment shown if you mouseover the image. It’s often a fine display of paraprosdokian.

The morning after I arrive, Hobbit and I squeeze into the front seat of the Ranger to join Wayne on a milk run. He starts the truck—well, gets it rolling—by releasing the emergency brake and putting the gearshift in neutral before jumping out and pushing the 3,330-pound vehicle down his sloping driveway with the engine off.

Here you go…

Waterfront IT offers backup systems consulting & implementation.
Online backup has its place, but is often inappropriate given bandwidth limitations.

Waterfront IT offers backup & disaster recovery systems consulting.

I reckon this:

Dress your own Steve

See other designs