People who say driving is freedom have never lived within walking distance of the amenities they need. You think driving to Costco/Walmart is convenient? I've left the house 5 minutes before the grocery store closes. When I want to make a recipe, I don't check the fridge for what I have until literally right before I need to start making it because forgetting something adds at most 15 minutes to the prep time. I've never had to haul ten grocery bags from my car because I never need to buy that much at one time and then watch half of it go bad in the fridge. I can go get snacks when I'm high as a kite on weed without killing someone on the road. True freedom for me is never needing to drive or own a car.
If you live in a rural area it really does feel like you are trapped there without a motorized vehicle. Especially late at night or in an emergency, even an ambulance can be 20+ minutes away in many places.
You can see this with the popularity of over powered e-bikes with teens. Basically silent dirt bikes at this point. They let kids go much farther from home and reduce the speed differential on road sides.
Public transit would be nice of course, but lots of people live 20-50km from any stores, and plenty live further. And have long cold winters.
I commuted by bike and subway for 18 years in Boston, but then moved home to care for dementia parents, now my son is biking (just pedals), and we’re forced to ride on paths or one town over where they have wide sidewalks and crossings (there aren’t either in our 2 stoplight town). Btw my commute took twice as long by public transport than by bike, but that’s another issue.
Like everything else, it’s a gray area, I think the US could realistically reduce vehicle use to the 40%s, but to go much lower would require the elimination of sprawl, building denser housing and a ton more local shopping, doctors, and grocery stores. Not just more trains and buses.
Rural areas where I lived in Mexico are walkable/bikable and most people get to the city an hour or so away with a shuttle that goes back and forth to the village. Our rural model is different and better where all the people live close in a small town or village area that has all the stuff to do and grocery stores and the crop fields, ranches, and orchards spread out radially from there.
The USA was built over the past century for the profit of oil companies. Most USians probably don't realize that it's possible to do things differently, and at this point it's probably not possible to change without land reform, given how much of US farmland has been consolidated under corporate ownership.
People all over assume things are done the best way already, and will argue endlessly with any proposed improvements, insisting they aren't practicable despite being dead wrong.
I think in rural areas you are dealing with a small minority. Suburbs should not need 2-3 cars per household. Cities certainly should not.
I think even Rural infrastructure should be setup for a 0-1 car per household. 90% of personal transport can be handled by two wheels and ride hailing services.
Using the unsafe argument for two wheels just points out the car problem more. Also the truck problem, which is due to mismanagement of train and rail resources.
Depends how you see it. I live in the countryside and would hate living in the city. Yet one does not both live in the countryside AND eat without a car when the closest grocery store is 30km away. We used to have a local grocery store that hardly had anything and which unsurprisingly went out if business.
In my case, driving IS freedom. It’s the freedom to go where I want when I want without having to rely on anyone else.
Do I miss having the grocery store across the street when I lived in the city? For sure, but I sure am glad I’m back in the countryside now.
Fun fact: there's no universally-accepted definition of "continent!" Depending on how you define it there could be as many as 8 or as few as 4. Sometimes Africa, Europe, and Asia are counted as one continent, and sometimes Antarctica isn't (notably in the Olympic flag). Sometimes Zealandia is added as the 8th continent. All the definitions I've seen count Australia as its own, though; and as noted that one's missing.
All of that to say, the original commenter might have an Afro-Eurasian non-Antarctic model in mind when they say that one entire continent is missing. The second one might have a non-Antarctic six-continent model in mind, and you have the traditional (English-speaking) seven-continent model in mind. But you might very reasonably (well, okay, slightly reasonably) say that this infographic is missing four continents: Africa, Australia, Antarctica, and Zealandia.
Oceania is a useful geographic region, but I haven't seen anyone include it as a continent; the most common definitions I've seen for continents are "lands sitting on the same tectonic plate" (so, the geological definition) and "contiguous land of a sufficient size not broken up by any ocean." Interestingly, both of those definitions still allow some wiggle room in what counts and what doesn't, but in either definition, Australia is not part of the South Pacific islands.
There's no "technically". It just depends. Sometimes America is considered as a single continent, sometimes 2 (north and south), and sometimes 3 (north, central and south).
I think they're trying to tell a story about the way cities in the US and Canada are brutally malformed for moving people around in them. Mexico is much more like Central America in its modality, and so adding their stats in obscures the abnormalities that are the US and Canada.
Unless I'm missing something, there's no mention of cities.
The closest grocery store for me is a 20 minute drive. Of course I drive. There aren't too many buses running around the woods of northern New England.
I'm not saying that the numbers are not still pretty bad. Boston has way too many cars. New York did an awesome thing with congestion pricing. But sometimes public transport doesn't make sense for the area.
I would like to see a graph that just shows major metropolitan areas. I'm sure the US still sucks but you can't include households that are many miles from any store at all and use that to skew the numbers.
Also, why exclude Mexico and then call it North america. Why not call it Canada and the US? Why not label Canada and the US separately? These numbers are pushing an agenda. I'm not saying the agenda is wrong but this graph seems a bit dishonest.
You're right, this graph isn't specifically about cities; it's just that cities are currently the biggest transit problems in the US.
I would like to see a graph that just shows major metropolitan areas.
The org that did this research also has a visualizer tool where you can compare different cities around the world, and you can see that even new York City has something like 65% of its population using personal cars. And it's by far the most multimodal city in North America; Ithaca gets close, because they have a robust cycling culture, and there are more Canadian cities in the hunt than US cities, but it's still unbelievably skewed in favor of personal cars. Which means that, even if you excluded all rural areas from this graph, North America would still be dramatically anomalous.
you can't include households that are many miles from any store at all and use that to skew the numbers.
I think that the reason that the graph doesn't exclude rural areas from its data is that the density of North America isn't dramatically different from the density of Europe or Asia. Yes, the US is slightly less dense than the world average, but not excessively so; and there are plenty of countries in those other continents with lower density than the US or Canada. In fact, Canada is quite a bit less dense than the US, but it's pulling North America's multimodality up. So no, you can't use it to skew the numbers--but I mean that in the sense that you're unable to do it, it's impossible, because it's affecting the numbers worldwide in more or less the same way.
Also, why exclude Mexico and then call it North america. Why not call it Canada and the US? Why not label Canada and the US separately?
Better readability, is my guess. The only divisions in this infographic that really matter are the political ones, because those are the divisions that affect the data in a meaningful way. So cutting out Mexico is no more arbitrary than cutting out Canada would've been.
These numbers are pushing an agenda.
All numbers are pushing an agenda.
Ok, not all numbers, but there's no real reason to gather demographic research data otherwise. We do censuses and polls and studies to figure out what to do as a society. That's why we do that. The numbers are telling a story, and it's not a false story: multimodality in the United States and Canada is dramatically lower than in other countries around the world. Cities in North America don't serve their citizens as well because their citizens don't have as many options for how they get around.
Sure, they could use this data to highlight how multimodal transportation in Eastern Europe is, but that's just another way of pointing out how one-sided it is in North America. Or you could use it to show how dominant public transit is in East Asia, or biking in South Asia, but again, they would just be another way of showing how anemic it is in the US.
And when you're an organization called "Environment International," that's the story you're trying to tell. They're just slicing it up in a way that makes the story clearest.
I'm not saying the agenda is wrong but this graph seems a bit dishonest.
It's not dishonest. It's being pretty up-front about showing a huge disparity, and it's not trying to hide the fact that they're cutting out Mexico to show that there's a serious problem in the US and Canada. It's like if you took a photo of a purse-snatching in progress, and you cropped in to show the crime occurring. No one would accuse you of lying because you cropped out the kid getting a treat from the ice cream truck on the right-hand side of the frame; you just made it more clear what you were trying to show with that photograph.
Canada may be less dense, overall but something crazy like 90% of Canada's population lives within 100 miles of the US border. No one lives in the northern tundra.
First off "Africa" (22.2% cars) and "Australia and New Zeland" (75.9% cars) are not shown. But probably more important: The paper where the data is taken from used the traffic data from 794 cities, "weighted by the population of each observation". Most probably there were more cities from regions with high car usage in the data.
Interesting side fact: "The 794 cities in the data are not representative samples of cities worldwide or different regions".
They're called prawns. Hoges only said 'shrimp' at the time because the tourism board figured Americans wouldn't know what prawns were. But, by God, you come here, you speak our language, dammit! Don't make me get the man from Ironbark!
So Africa/Mexico/Oceania must have a very high proportion of drivers to skew the world average, as from the graph alone there's no way the average is 51%
How is Europe split? Germany is rather central. Does it Count as north or west europe? South? Probably nor east. Or is Germany divided again for this analysis? Resembling post-WWII times.
I looked at it and the study is only considering cities. I wonder why whoever made the chart omitted Mexico since it is included in the original study?
The researchers for this study put together a neat data explorer at citiesmoving.com
The cultural distinction between US+Canada and the rest of the Americas (usually called Latin America despite Jamaica), which is the divide they probably used, makes for more distinction in most metrics than the geographical division. Similarly, most polls about "Europeans" exclude Ukraine and Belarus, not to mention the Western parts of Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkey.
I think the Mexico data is really off, but at the same time I have seen several cities (like Culiacan, Mexicali, and Guadalajara) where the price for public transport has gone way up while making the service quality worse (fewer buses, fewer routes, no AC on summer)
so it would not surprise me if usage keeps going down over time
Two economists are walking in a forest when they Come across a pile of shit.
The first economist says to the other "Ill pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit." The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit.
They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says "l pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit." The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit.
Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing." "That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!"
• median net discretionary GDP (PPP) per capita
• generalised entropy index
• Social Progress Index
The first one yields that 50% of the population can buy more or less than a certain amount of stuff, after tax and regular expenses (groceries, utility, rent, etc.)
The second could be used for wealth disparity. Unlike the Gini index, it allows you to view differences by groups.
The third is very broad and does not use economics, instead focusing on general wellbeing. That is a strength, as it enables comparisons between wealth and wellbeing. Some criticism I have on the index though, is that on regards of inclusivity, it doesn't include the (very good) Asher Fergusson index for trans rights. LGBTQ+ isn't just gays and lesbians, it's all queer people.
I'd also add in the Copenhagenisation index for bicycling, alongside with indices for pedestrian and public transit-friendliness.
For countries occupying other areas, count those areas both separately and include them in that country's statistics. So then Israel's statistics are actually honest: the inequality is extremely high, life expectancy very low, and so on.
And the more the state deports/kills/mistreats in those occupied areas (as reported by the victims), the worse in the statistics. The fewer possibility to honestly ask them, the even worse on statistics.
To top it off, within the safety part of the social progress index, I'd include the detained population as a rate of the total, perceptions of state (and hybrid) violence, as well as extent of surveillance, police and para-military, armedness.
Oh, and it'd be better to have sources be independent from state and corporatist actors.
IF you had a functional social safety net, however in this circumstance you would eat shit, pay taxes, a family in Palestine would die, and a rich person would have a couple extra dollars towards the next extravagant pedophilia convention in Florida
Sorry, all you get is a Ukraine that is in debt for the next 100 years as Euro-American megacorporations pillage the land and opportunists purchase its women and children for their own satisfaction. The men, of course, are sent as mercenaries into a neverending meatgrinder against whatever enemy we decide they should fight this week.
Yes of course. In reality, capitalists would take 40% of that GDP produced and the state another 20%. So you'd be left with 40% of the "value" you produced while eating shit.
It is important to be miserable and waste resources so that the rich can get richer. The benefits will come when trickle-down economics start working. We've just got acid rain so far but there will be money falling from the sky any moment now.
Upvoted because I'm all but certain this is sarcasm flying under the radar. Like, I've seen you around (your name name is pretty hard to forget), and generally you have good takes. Chaotic, but that's not a bad thing.
97 Comments
HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml · 128 pts · 96d
People who say driving is freedom have never lived within walking distance of the amenities they need. You think driving to Costco/Walmart is convenient? I've left the house 5 minutes before the grocery store closes. When I want to make a recipe, I don't check the fridge for what I have until literally right before I need to start making it because forgetting something adds at most 15 minutes to the prep time. I've never had to haul ten grocery bags from my car because I never need to buy that much at one time and then watch half of it go bad in the fridge. I can go get snacks when I'm high as a kite on weed without killing someone on the road. True freedom for me is never needing to drive or own a car.
SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works · 22 pts · 96d
Amen, Driving is dependance.
nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de · 5 pts · 95d
I’d argue it’s both freedom and dependence.
If you live in a rural area it really does feel like you are trapped there without a motorized vehicle. Especially late at night or in an emergency, even an ambulance can be 20+ minutes away in many places.
You can see this with the popularity of over powered e-bikes with teens. Basically silent dirt bikes at this point. They let kids go much farther from home and reduce the speed differential on road sides.
Public transit would be nice of course, but lots of people live 20-50km from any stores, and plenty live further. And have long cold winters.
I commuted by bike and subway for 18 years in Boston, but then moved home to care for dementia parents, now my son is biking (just pedals), and we’re forced to ride on paths or one town over where they have wide sidewalks and crossings (there aren’t either in our 2 stoplight town). Btw my commute took twice as long by public transport than by bike, but that’s another issue.
Like everything else, it’s a gray area, I think the US could realistically reduce vehicle use to the 40%s, but to go much lower would require the elimination of sprawl, building denser housing and a ton more local shopping, doctors, and grocery stores. Not just more trains and buses.
/end rant, sorry it got long, nuance is tricky.
hamid@crazypeople.online · 8 pts · 95d
If you live in a rural area... in the USA
Rural areas where I lived in Mexico are walkable/bikable and most people get to the city an hour or so away with a shuttle that goes back and forth to the village. Our rural model is different and better where all the people live close in a small town or village area that has all the stuff to do and grocery stores and the crop fields, ranches, and orchards spread out radially from there.
TiredTiger@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 95d
The USA was built over the past century for the profit of oil companies. Most USians probably don't realize that it's possible to do things differently, and at this point it's probably not possible to change without land reform, given how much of US farmland has been consolidated under corporate ownership.
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 3 pts · 95d
People all over assume things are done the best way already, and will argue endlessly with any proposed improvements, insisting they aren't practicable despite being dead wrong.
SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 95d
I think in rural areas you are dealing with a small minority. Suburbs should not need 2-3 cars per household. Cities certainly should not.
I think even Rural infrastructure should be setup for a 0-1 car per household. 90% of personal transport can be handled by two wheels and ride hailing services.
Using the unsafe argument for two wheels just points out the car problem more. Also the truck problem, which is due to mismanagement of train and rail resources.
SorryQuick@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 95d
Depends how you see it. I live in the countryside and would hate living in the city. Yet one does not both live in the countryside AND eat without a car when the closest grocery store is 30km away. We used to have a local grocery store that hardly had anything and which unsurprisingly went out if business.
In my case, driving IS freedom. It’s the freedom to go where I want when I want without having to rely on anyone else.
Do I miss having the grocery store across the street when I lived in the city? For sure, but I sure am glad I’m back in the countryside now.
Brkdncr@lemmy.world · 54 pts · 96d
An entire continent is missing.
tanisnikana@lemmy.world · 33 pts · 96d
More than one!
AspieEgg@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 24 pts · 96d
Three of them, though I don’t know how much biking people are doing in Antarctica.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 96d
Fun fact: there's no universally-accepted definition of "continent!" Depending on how you define it there could be as many as 8 or as few as 4. Sometimes Africa, Europe, and Asia are counted as one continent, and sometimes Antarctica isn't (notably in the Olympic flag). Sometimes Zealandia is added as the 8th continent. All the definitions I've seen count Australia as its own, though; and as noted that one's missing.
All of that to say, the original commenter might have an Afro-Eurasian non-Antarctic model in mind when they say that one entire continent is missing. The second one might have a non-Antarctic six-continent model in mind, and you have the traditional (English-speaking) seven-continent model in mind. But you might very reasonably (well, okay, slightly reasonably) say that this infographic is missing four continents: Africa, Australia, Antarctica, and Zealandia.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 95d
Side note, I just realized that the continents alphabetize really strangely, if you combine the Americas:
Africa Americas Antarctica Asia Australia Europe
The letter A is way overrepresented in the names of our continents.
MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 95d
For the glory of A, Europe shall now be renamed to Aurope!
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 95d
More proof the Atlantis continent was real!
ilinamorato@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 95d
You finally unlocked my mind, I get it now
Danquebec@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 96d
I've often seen Australia included in Oceania.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 96d
Oceania is a useful geographic region, but I haven't seen anyone include it as a continent; the most common definitions I've seen for continents are "lands sitting on the same tectonic plate" (so, the geological definition) and "contiguous land of a sufficient size not broken up by any ocean." Interestingly, both of those definitions still allow some wiggle room in what counts and what doesn't, but in either definition, Australia is not part of the South Pacific islands.
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 95d
I thought Oceania was just another name for Australia?
Danquebec@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 95d
It normally also includes the myriad of islands of the Pacific, New Zeland, and maybe Papuasia.
BarrelAgedBoredom@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 96d
I need to know how the penguins commute
___@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 96d
They waddle or swim! They used to drive until the Heard and McDonald Islands got tariffed :/
robocall@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 96d
Also excluding Mexico for some reason.
gilokee@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 96d
Mexico is part of North America...
Danquebec@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 96d
It is, but read the small font: it says they excluded Mexico from their North America stats.
gilokee@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 95d
oh. lol.
bedwyr@piefed.ca · 1 pts · 95d
Maybe they put it under Central America, which is all north america technically.
Danquebec@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 95d
There's no "technically". It just depends. Sometimes America is considered as a single continent, sometimes 2 (north and south), and sometimes 3 (north, central and south).
BarrelAgedBoredom@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 96d
Mexico is part (most) of Central AmericaI was mistakenprotogen420@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 96d
although wrong I think it would make more sense
urandom@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 95d
There are no buses in Antarctica, silly
bampop@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 95d
0% cars, 0% public transport, 30% walking/biking, 30% swimming, 40% belly tobogganing
redlemace@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 95d
Rindogang@lemmy.ml · 19 pts · 96d
The North America stat is fine if you're only talking about the US and Canada... but since they left Mexico out it's not really accurate
ilinamorato@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 96d
I think they're trying to tell a story about the way cities in the US and Canada are brutally malformed for moving people around in them. Mexico is much more like Central America in its modality, and so adding their stats in obscures the abnormalities that are the US and Canada.
tinyvoltron@discuss.online · 2 pts · 96d
Unless I'm missing something, there's no mention of cities.
The closest grocery store for me is a 20 minute drive. Of course I drive. There aren't too many buses running around the woods of northern New England.
I'm not saying that the numbers are not still pretty bad. Boston has way too many cars. New York did an awesome thing with congestion pricing. But sometimes public transport doesn't make sense for the area.
I would like to see a graph that just shows major metropolitan areas. I'm sure the US still sucks but you can't include households that are many miles from any store at all and use that to skew the numbers.
Also, why exclude Mexico and then call it North america. Why not call it Canada and the US? Why not label Canada and the US separately? These numbers are pushing an agenda. I'm not saying the agenda is wrong but this graph seems a bit dishonest.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 96d
You're right, this graph isn't specifically about cities; it's just that cities are currently the biggest transit problems in the US.
The org that did this research also has a visualizer tool where you can compare different cities around the world, and you can see that even new York City has something like 65% of its population using personal cars. And it's by far the most multimodal city in North America; Ithaca gets close, because they have a robust cycling culture, and there are more Canadian cities in the hunt than US cities, but it's still unbelievably skewed in favor of personal cars. Which means that, even if you excluded all rural areas from this graph, North America would still be dramatically anomalous.
I think that the reason that the graph doesn't exclude rural areas from its data is that the density of North America isn't dramatically different from the density of Europe or Asia. Yes, the US is slightly less dense than the world average, but not excessively so; and there are plenty of countries in those other continents with lower density than the US or Canada. In fact, Canada is quite a bit less dense than the US, but it's pulling North America's multimodality up. So no, you can't use it to skew the numbers--but I mean that in the sense that you're unable to do it, it's impossible, because it's affecting the numbers worldwide in more or less the same way.
Better readability, is my guess. The only divisions in this infographic that really matter are the political ones, because those are the divisions that affect the data in a meaningful way. So cutting out Mexico is no more arbitrary than cutting out Canada would've been.
All numbers are pushing an agenda.
Ok, not all numbers, but there's no real reason to gather demographic research data otherwise. We do censuses and polls and studies to figure out what to do as a society. That's why we do that. The numbers are telling a story, and it's not a false story: multimodality in the United States and Canada is dramatically lower than in other countries around the world. Cities in North America don't serve their citizens as well because their citizens don't have as many options for how they get around.
Sure, they could use this data to highlight how multimodal transportation in Eastern Europe is, but that's just another way of pointing out how one-sided it is in North America. Or you could use it to show how dominant public transit is in East Asia, or biking in South Asia, but again, they would just be another way of showing how anemic it is in the US.
And when you're an organization called "Environment International," that's the story you're trying to tell. They're just slicing it up in a way that makes the story clearest.
It's not dishonest. It's being pretty up-front about showing a huge disparity, and it's not trying to hide the fact that they're cutting out Mexico to show that there's a serious problem in the US and Canada. It's like if you took a photo of a purse-snatching in progress, and you cropped in to show the crime occurring. No one would accuse you of lying because you cropped out the kid getting a treat from the ice cream truck on the right-hand side of the frame; you just made it more clear what you were trying to show with that photograph.
doingthestuff@lemy.lol · 1 pts · 95d
Canada may be less dense, overall but something crazy like 90% of Canada's population lives within 100 miles of the US border. No one lives in the northern tundra.
frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 95d
How did they get an average of 51% for cars, when all but one bar is below that?
Zoneflasher@feddit.org · 9 pts · 95d
First off "Africa" (22.2% cars) and "Australia and New Zeland" (75.9% cars) are not shown. But probably more important: The paper where the data is taken from used the traffic data from 794 cities, "weighted by the population of each observation". Most probably there were more cities from regions with high car usage in the data.
Interesting side fact: "The 794 cities in the data are not representative samples of cities worldwide or different regions".
frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 95d
good answer
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 95d
weighted averages.
folaht@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 95d
Through extremely heavy use of cars in Africa of course.
Everyone knows that in Africa people get around in cars 24/7 100%.
finallymadeanaccount@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 96d
Hello! Australia is a thing! We get around just as much as everyone else does, thank you very much! I've got the emu feathers to prove it!
MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 95d
I'm no mapologist, but I believe Austria is included in one of the Europe sections.
cone_zombie@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 95d
I didn't know Hitler was from the land down under
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 95d
he is strange and makes me nervous. i'm not eating his breakfast tho
ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 95d
I see you speak my language
folaht@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 95d
You thought he'd be from Denmark like Hamlet?
MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 95d
Crickey mate, put another undesirable on the barby?
finallymadeanaccount@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 95d
They're called prawns. Hoges only said 'shrimp' at the time because the tourism board figured Americans wouldn't know what prawns were. But, by God, you come here, you speak our language, dammit! Don't make me get the man from Ironbark!
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 94d
Where women snore and men chunder?
calmblue75@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 95d
lmao
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 95d
charts without New Zealand
HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 95d
So Africa/Mexico/Oceania must have a very high proportion of drivers to skew the world average, as from the graph alone there's no way the average is 51%
Bloomcole@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 95d
Especially the area where China/India are in the 20% area and are 10x bigger in population than N-America
dragnucs@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 95d
What about Africa ?
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 94d
Everything is within walking distance for them due to Mercator contraction.
Zacryon@feddit.org · 8 pts · 95d
How is Europe split? Germany is rather central. Does it Count as north or west europe? South? Probably nor east. Or is Germany divided again for this analysis? Resembling post-WWII times.
Zoneflasher@feddit.org · 3 pts · 95d
All 154 german cities in the data are listed as western Europe
atopi@piefed.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 95d
Germany is in the western half of Europe
mezza@mastodon.pub.solar · 3 pts · 95d
@Zacryon @dessalines normally central Europe. Here I'd assume its counted as western Europe
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 95d
Me: stays in basement
DrBob@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 96d
Now do urban, suburban, exurban, rural splits.
reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net · 9 pts · 96d
I looked at it and the study is only considering cities. I wonder why whoever made the chart omitted Mexico since it is included in the original study?
The researchers for this study put together a neat data explorer at citiesmoving.com
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 2 pts · 95d
Weird to exclude mexico
njm1314@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 95d
Brother you realize you could have more than one sentence per comment right?
Sualtam@lemmus.org · 3 pts · 95d
Why many when few do trick?
calmblue75@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 95d
Did you see how many comments the top level commenter put out?
ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org · 0 pts · 95d
The cultural distinction between US+Canada and the rest of the Americas (usually called Latin America despite Jamaica), which is the divide they probably used, makes for more distinction in most metrics than the geographical division. Similarly, most polls about "Europeans" exclude Ukraine and Belarus, not to mention the Western parts of Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkey.
sakuraba@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 96d
I think the Mexico data is really off, but at the same time I have seen several cities (like Culiacan, Mexicali, and Guadalajara) where the price for public transport has gone way up while making the service quality worse (fewer buses, fewer routes, no AC on summer)
so it would not surprise me if usage keeps going down over time
Allero@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 92d
It's honestly insane. Half of regular travels in the world is done using huge machines 10-20X the weight of humans inside.
People get to carry a giant piece of metal around and they think it's okay.
Bakkoda@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 95d
quick_snail@feddit.nl · -3 pts · 95d
Is biking including motorcycles?
Zoneflasher@feddit.org · 3 pts · 95d
"Cars" includes "Cars, SUVs, pickup trucks, taxis, and mobility apps (like Uber and Lyft). The category also includes motorbikes."
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 95d
Where does it say that?
Zoneflasher@feddit.org · 3 pts · 95d
I took a look at the cited paper. Table 2 was used for this graphic. It's from the paragraph right above it
quick_snail@feddit.nl · -3 pts · 95d
Link to article?
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · -17 pts · 96d
Driving cars is important to the economy.
iByteABit@lemmy.ml · 23 pts · 96d
merdaverse@lemmy.zip · 20 pts · 96d
quick_snail@feddit.nl · 3 pts · 95d
Another reason why measuring economic success in GDP is stupid.
It's better to measure wealth disparity.
birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 95d
I myself would favour to use:
• median net discretionary GDP (PPP) per capita
• generalised entropy index
• Social Progress Index
The first one yields that 50% of the population can buy more or less than a certain amount of stuff, after tax and regular expenses (groceries, utility, rent, etc.)
The second could be used for wealth disparity. Unlike the Gini index, it allows you to view differences by groups.
The third is very broad and does not use economics, instead focusing on general wellbeing. That is a strength, as it enables comparisons between wealth and wellbeing. Some criticism I have on the index though, is that on regards of inclusivity, it doesn't include the (very good) Asher Fergusson index for trans rights. LGBTQ+ isn't just gays and lesbians, it's all queer people.
I'd also add in the Copenhagenisation index for bicycling, alongside with indices for pedestrian and public transit-friendliness.
For countries occupying other areas, count those areas both separately and include them in that country's statistics. So then Israel's statistics are actually honest: the inequality is extremely high, life expectancy very low, and so on.
And the more the state deports/kills/mistreats in those occupied areas (as reported by the victims), the worse in the statistics. The fewer possibility to honestly ask them, the even worse on statistics.
To top it off, within the safety part of the social progress index, I'd include the detained population as a rate of the total, perceptions of state (and hybrid) violence, as well as extent of surveillance, police and para-military, armedness.
Oh, and it'd be better to have sources be independent from state and corporatist actors.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · 0 pts · 96d
What that joke is missing is the fact that the $200 is taxable income so the government and its citizens would benefit from that transaction.
marcie@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 96d
IF you had a functional social safety net, however in this circumstance you would eat shit, pay taxes, a family in Palestine would die, and a rich person would have a couple extra dollars towards the next extravagant pedophilia convention in Florida
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · -4 pts · 96d
Maybe Ukraine would be given a missile to defend itself.
I’d be okay with that.
marcie@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 95d
Sorry, all you get is a Ukraine that is in debt for the next 100 years as Euro-American megacorporations pillage the land and opportunists purchase its women and children for their own satisfaction. The men, of course, are sent as mercenaries into a neverending meatgrinder against whatever enemy we decide they should fight this week.
merdaverse@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 95d
Yes of course. In reality, capitalists would take 40% of that GDP produced and the state another 20%. So you'd be left with 40% of the "value" you produced while eating shit.
ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org · 15 pts · 96d
It is important to be miserable and waste resources so that the rich can get richer. The benefits will come when trickle-down economics start working. We've just got acid rain so far but there will be money falling from the sky any moment now.
yogthos@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 96d
when you definitely understand what words mean
HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 96d
No, transportation in general is. Cars are by far the least efficient form of transportation and therefore the worst for the economy.
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 96d
The worst until we get to private jets and helicopters
dessalines@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 96d
Which country's economy?
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · 4 pts · 96d
America, the greatest nation in the galaxy.
IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 96d
the economy is made up to distract you so they can destroy communities for profits.
cravl@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 95d
Upvoted because I'm all but certain this is sarcasm flying under the radar. Like, I've seen you around (your name name is pretty hard to forget), and generally you have good takes. Chaotic, but that's not a bad thing.
ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org · 1 pts · 93d
We really need a widely used subtle sarcasm indicator
euklidiadas@masto.es · 1 pts · 93d
@ChaoticNeutralCzech @cravl
It existed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony/_punctuation