I’m from Europe and would similarly call bs. Literally everyone I know can afford a one week vacation. And that includes a couple on social services one friend who’s on long term sick leave and a homeless friend.... but I live in a bubble on the far right hand of the chart; Denmark, not in Romania or Greece, so my personal experience isn’t that telling. That said I do think they are artificially pushing the numbers higher by including 16 year olds. For jobless teens it’s obvious they “couldn’t afford” vacation, but again every teen I know travels with their parents paying. I think 10% being unable to travel in Denmark is extremely overshooting it. It’s more likely less than 2% in the extreme scenario. As I said I know unemployed and homeless people who still have enough to travel.
Most of Europe has seen zero net economic growth for about 12 years. Simultaneously household debt has skyrocketed across most of developed Europe over the last two decades.
Many of the major economies in Europe have net contracted over the last 12 years, even as their populations have expanded (Britain and France for example). That's a recipe for falling per capita living standards (especially while populations are aging, so you have fewer workers and higher social welfare system costs).
When you adjust for inflation, the majority of countries in Europe have seen their economies contract since 2007-2008.
Here is what it looks like per capita from 2007-2017 (and many of the large economies in Europe are again teetering on recession, including Germany):
If you look at Britain, their economy is about where it was in 2004 on GDP, while having added 10% more population
For France, they're about where they were in 2003 on GDP. They've added 6% or 7% to their population in that time.
Germany has seen zero net economic growth since 2007-2008.
Italy has seen zero net economic growth since 2004.
Spain has seen zero net economic growth since 2006.
Russia has seen zero net economic growth since 2008 roughly.
The Netherlands has seen zero net economic growth since 2007. Their economy was $913b for 2018, it was $936b in 2008 for comparison. That's prior to an inflation adjustment (a conservative inflation adjustment is that their economy is ~20% smaller versus 2008).
Belgium has seen zero net economic growth since 2007.
Denmark and Finland have seen zero net economic growth since 2007-2008. Denmark's GDP in 2007 was $319b ($353b in 2008), in 2018 it was $350b.
Finland's economy was $255b in 2007 ($283b in 2008). It was $275b in 2018. A conservative inflation adjustment over those ten years would produce a meaningful contraction. Even worse, their economy was $141b in 1990, so they've seen almost no growth for nearly three decades. $141b adjusted from Jan 1991, is ~$268b today, per the Fed.
Poland has seen zero net economic growth since 2008. Their GDP was $533b in 2008, it was $586b in 2018. Even a very small inflation adjustment across ten years means they've seen zero real growth (or worse, a real net contraction).
Portugal has seen zero net economic growth since 2007-2008.
Greece has been set back to where they were in the mid 1990s, so they've lost 25-30 years.
This list keeps going. It consists of most of the large economies in Europe, with only a few exceptions (Sweden has done OK after an inflation adjustment, somewhere close to break-even; the Baltic states have done well). Countries like Slovakia, Czech, Bulgaria, Hungary, Belarus, Slovenia, Croatia, et al. have seen zero growth since 2007-2008 roughly.
That chart mostly reflects that the dollar gained a lot of strength over that time span since it converts to dollar at every years exchange rate, if you go back to 2000 you'd see that all of them gained huge amounts since dollar weakened a lot from 2000-2007.
They exist and they are very annoying compared to regular old 50m lanes. You end up having to constantly overcompensate to one side (obviously) but also you suddenly have to either burn in a constant bias to your technique (bad) or be constantly aware of the boundaries, which ruins the normal flow of pool swimming. They are fun for families and kids who only ever do one or a half round, but if you like swimming just stick to traditional pools.
No, the solution is to move the water and have the swimming equivalent of a treadmill. NB: this already actually exists, only remember seeing it in a video at some point though.
You probably saw it in person as well, it's called a river :) In Zurich there's multiple places where you can swim in the Limmat, and it takes quite some effort to stay in place - one example is https://images.app.goo.gl/qTASdR51yDTiCk299 (of course you could go without the installation but this allows people to use it that would be afraid of getting carried away ...)
The problem with this is that the current is constant. When doing a long set I sometimes accent the arms and the legs alternately over say 200m. Well typically three lengths of arms and one length of kick dominated effort. The thing is the speed does change from one technique to other but moving the water at a constant speed over a short distance doesn't work properly. So it's cute for a little swimming but it's not compelling for serious training. Never mind if you want try doing an individual medley set.
That's true. The motivation for the swimmer is to not get sucked into the intake. I can hear the coach laughing maniacally as he turns the speed up to 11.
Most fish farms force fish to swim through a current of running water. I think most are concrete “runs” that continuously pump water through. At least what I’ve seen in the US is that way. There are now many overseas fish farms.
How about a pool in a rotating orbital space station? Just keep swimming forwards and slightly uphill :) Just don't lose the fake G or you could be the first person to drown in space.
I once saw a documentary about a fish farm where they had tanks where fish were forced to swim in circles. Probably not the most fish friendly environment.
Regular pool, open two lanes, swim laps (up one lane, down the other). It's done with two lanes, so there is enough room to pass. I've seen it done this way several places.
I’m confused as to what you are suggesting here? Normally you swim right side of the lane and turn going back on the “left side”, with room to pass on the inside unless the lane is filled with two many people. What does using two lanes add, except ruining your turns?
Do experts take into account previous performance and overcompensate current score to ensure previous top players are pushed out the top 10?
Data seems to suggest this, which is going to extreme lengths beyond “expert votes”.
And is more akin to changing the rules at the last minute to avoid living up to the promises put out by the platform.
If this is not the case then perhaps you can release more data to illuminate the oddities highlighted by the article?
The scooters have GPS, have the companies required by law to send out representatives to clean up any scooter on private property that hasn't explicitly given permission for them to be there, and allow the city to mark of any public area they want as forbidden as well.
There’s nothing cryptographic about this. It’s a central authority that either says “yes it’s real” or not. The system revolves around trust in that central authority. Everyone can easily fake a certificate which cannot be independently falsified without asking that central authority, who will be more likely to check their books than to do anything related to the actual certificate.
This is the second time in a couple weeks where I've seen a headline try to take a "crypto" angle for something ridiculously simple. There was another article touting drug cartels using "dollar bill serial numbers as random keys", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20484197, which was wrong - the keys weren't random, they were just unique and difficult to fake.
I get the sense, with the general failure of blockchain to live up to its hype beyond Bitcoin, that we'll see a lot of "crypto-" this and that nonsense, similar to how everything was "e-" this and that in 2000.
No, but I think you'll agree that saying tears in a piece of paper "cryptography" is a stretch. It's not cryptography in the same way that a stamp or wax seal isn't cryptography, unless your definition of cryptography is "any method to protect the confidentiality and integrity of a document".
That’s right, the CA certificates in your browser can be tampered with because they aren’t the actual CA saying “yes it’s legit” they are a token containing a cryptographic key which claims to prove authenticity mathematically.
While not actually cryptographic in nature, it's a nontrivial authentication protocol that is better than a more traditional certificate, as discussed in the article, and potentially very impressive end enlightening for the not too technically minded people who follow art and art trade.
Salary is a market value. Your arguments read like “if a BigMac costs half a Dollar in a developing country then the BigMac is inherently worth half a dollar and should cost the same in the US”
Were that true, global markets where the location of the seller is immaterial to the utility of the good or service sold and didn't create extra costs to get it to the buyer wouldn't have different rates based on the seller's location, by the Law of One Price.
> Your arguments read like “if a BigMac costs half a Dollar in a developing country then the BigMac is inherently worth half a dollar and should cost the same in the US”
A more precise equivalent would be “there is no rational reason for the same buyer to be willing to pay more to purchase a Big Mac delivered from a neighboring higher CoL city as an identical one delivered with the same latency from a different neigboring community with a lower CoL.” Local prices for Big Macs between countries naturally vary precisely because Big Mac distribution isn't globalized the way remote labor is, and a Big Macs from a McDonald’s in Turkmenistan is not an equivalent substitute for one from a McDonald's next to Market Street for a buyer in
Downtown SF.
Local wage policies for remote work are an effort by employers to present a rationalization to employees not to increase their wage demands to what the globalized market they are actually competing in will support. They will only be able to be maintained so long as remote work isn't widely offered and there isn't a meaningful competitive (on both sides) market; once there are enough competing buyers for any given kind of labor, competition for labor will see the best workers from low-CoL area consistently going to employers that aren't lowballing them.
Shaving 20minutes off of a trip that takes more than an hour is not comparable to going from horses to cars. Current routes and travel times are perfectly fine when you ask the consumers, they just want it affordable. No one wants to take the train when flying costs almost the same.
>No one wants to take the train when flying costs almost the same.
Sure they do if it's more pleasant. In the US, the train on the Northeast Corridor takes maybe a bit longer depending upon the specifics than flying and costs in the same ballpark (depending on whether Acela or regular coach, parking, etc.) And it's at capacity at peak times.
When you're not talking big money in the scheme of things, many will take whatever mode of transportation is most convenient and comfortable--especially for business travel.
If you really are very price sensitive, you're probably taking Megabus or something similar.
Doesn't seem fine to me. Denmark has some of the highest taxes on cars, high taxes in general, is overall expensive and increasingly has dysfunctional politics and uncompetitive infrastructure [0]. Part of the benefit of being a small country is that you can exercise a greater degree of control. With a suitably high tax rate you can lower the barrier to entry to increase participation and make the most out of your population. It if of course up to each country to select their model, but I don't see the endgame of Denmark not upgrading their infrastructure. That isn't something they can win at. Even the US arguably can't anymore.
I personally am willing to pay up to a 200% premium to take the train versus flying if the length of the overall trip isn't more than 2x the length of an overall air trip (including security, getting to the airport, waiting in lines, waiting for baggage, late takeoffs, getting suck in holding patterns, extra security scans, etc).
A fast train is always a healthier and more pleasant experience than an airplane. Hint: trains have windows.
Disclosure: I'm a private pilot and have lifetime status on two major carriers. I still hate air travel.
They could... but then they wouldn’t return the interpolated string, and they’d be just like using format, just saving the characters “.format” which ruins the exact thing people like about them.
Nah - you're clearly not using Python enough - the issue with current format is that of the identity of the arguments passed to it.
I need to do 2 changes every time I change a format string - I need to remove the symbol representing it's placement and then I need to remove the argument passed to .format.
Also old formatting does not easily support arbitrary expressions in the placements, thus in order to get those you need to change the arguments passed to the .format.
f-strings get rid of those issues altogether. What you're showing is whatever you have in the brackets - 0 indirection and thus less margin for (unnecessary) errors.
I struggle to understand how what you talked about is relevant here. The problem parent talked about is how this laziness could be implemented without losing what makes f-string awesome right now. It’s not viable, which backs my reasoning why at least one alternative format method is required.
That said, I also struggle to understand how you’d claim parent clearly not using Python enough, when your description of str.format shows a lack of understanding to it yourself. One of the advantages of str.format over %-formatting is exactly that you do not need to modify the arguments passed to str.format when removing components from the source string:
>>> '{0} {1} {2}'.format('a', 'b', 'c')
'a b c'
>>> '{0} {2}'.format('a', 'b', 'c')
'a c'
Or preferably (using keyword arguments instead of positional):
>>> '{x} {y} {z}'.format(x='a', y='b', z='c')
'a b c'
>>> '{x} {z}'.format(x='a', y='b', z='c')
'a c'
But again, this doesn’t matter to parent’s argument. Nobody is arguing with you that f-string is better than alternatives for what it can do; we are trying to tell you that there are things it can’t do, and you did not get it.
>> One of the advantages of str.format over %-formatting is exactly that you do not need to modify the arguments passed to str.format when removing components from the source string:
It's not the string that most of the developers care about, it's the presence of the arguments to that string. The issue they are solving is "I would like to see A, B and C", rather than the issue of "I have provided A, B and C - would you please hide B from the view".
>> But again, this doesn’t matter to parent’s argument. Nobody is arguing with you that f-string is better than alternatives for what it can do; we are trying to tell you that there are things it can’t do, and you did not get it.
Please elaborate on what the f-string can't do? You have not provided the answer in your post. In my opinion, the only issue f-strings haven't solved is capturing the arguments in lambdas (before interplation) instead of their direct values. You, on the other hand - do not provide a clear explanation.
