|
coffeetable posted:go the whole hog on converting libraries from paper repositories to places where people who are not comfortable with this internet thing can be helped out E-books licenses are terrible value for money, and this is intentional on the part of the publisher, because they want you to get the stuff you do want bundled in with crap you don't for a higher price. One publisher implemented a policy where an e-book could only be borrowed 26 times before the licence expired. They'd got some survey or other to 'prove' that library books this was the average number of loans before a book fell apart and had to be replaced. Which is nonsense, but the thought that someone would get that 27th loan without the publisher being paid was clearly keeping them up at night. And what happens to all the non-book services that libraries offer? Not to mention it's really hard to run mobile and prison libraries online (they are local authority libraries too).
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
Reason number ℵ why copyright is dogshit and needs fully replacing with something fit for purpose like guillotines
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
jabby posted:I don't know why they'd vote against a system that would likely make them perpetual kingmakers. Perpetual unless anything about the balance of uk politics changes, yes. there may be some in the party with memories that stretch further back than 2015.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
Map that doesn't cherry pick states in the EU to paint a skewed picture: Wealth across the EU GDP per person as a percentage of EU average (purchasing power standard) in 2016  Source: Eurostat, Gross domestic product (GDP) in purchasing power standard (PPS) per inhabitant at current market prices by NUTS 2 level regions.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
So it still shows Lincolnshire and West Wales at the bottom end of the UK, along with Cornwall and Teeside. e: Also shows Mazowieckie as not in the EU 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
That Italian Guy posted:Map that doesn't cherry pick states in the EU to paint a skewed picture: that's kind of meaningless without a legend lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:that's kind of meaningless without a legend lol Since the area I live is as poor as poo poo, I'd guess redder is poorer, bluer is richer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:00
|
|
|
I'm getting v. angry at bad visualisations
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Eurostat, apparently it's out of date now though, the UK only has 6 of the 10 poorest regions
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
Maybe the UK shouldn't be in the EU.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
ronya posted:new Farage vehicle Well his last one was a write-off 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
That Italian Guy posted:Map that doesn't cherry pick states in the EU to paint a skewed picture: I find it hard to believe that Southern Ireland is somehow as prosperous as London.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:10
|
|
JFairfax posted:I'm getting v. angry at bad visualisations I mean, both maps are bad on their own to discuss about anything, it's just that this one has every single region instead of picking only a few selected ones. Again, they're bad measurements for anything cause they are not taking into consideration the area/n. of people who live there for starters. Is a small red area with 20k people living in it is as important compared to a medium size yellow area with 10mil people? How many people in the "yellow" area live in conditions similar or worse compared to the people in the "red" area - but they don't register, cause the average GPD in the area is higher? So, you can definitely say that some 50sq km in the middle of the countryside are poorer, on average, compared to 500sq km of a mixed urban/rural area...but what does that accomplish? It's comparing (blue) apples to oranges, as I said last time. There may be more people under the poverty line in a large yellow area than in a small red one.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
Z the IVth posted:I find it hard to believe that Southern Ireland is somehow as prosperous as London. that's not really what the map is claiming to visualise
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
Z the IVth posted:I find it hard to believe that Southern Ireland is somehow as prosperous as London. I'm willing to bet Dublin counts for 95% of that figure, and it is a super wealthy city. London prices or higher on almost everything last time I was there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:12
|
|
Z the IVth posted:I find it hard to believe that Southern Ireland is somehow as prosperous as London. Southern Ireland has 1/5 of the population of London. Most of its population is in Dublin, a city as expensive as London, with a tech bubble in it. There are in fact more people living in the small dot in Dublin than the rest of that blue area. Again, this kind of visualization is nonsense when trying to gauge how well off a certain area is, cause the boundaries are set out in an inconsistent way. The previous map is even worse, cause it only displays the extremes without the mid values; and doesn't show how large each area is. Both maps are bad cause there is no normalization for n. of people living in an area. That Italian Guy fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Mar 31, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
That Italian Guy posted:Southern Ireland has 1/5 of the population of London. Most of its population is in Dublin, a city as expensive as London, with a tech bubble in it. There are in fact more people living in the small dot in Dublin than the rest of that blue area. Again, this kind of visualization is nonsense when trying to gauge how well off a certain area is, cause the boundaries are set out in an inconsistent way. So ignoring that it'll probably be irrelevant in two weeks when we crash out no deal, it's useful for what it does, guiding EU investment for areas that have low GDP (PPS) per capita. Who then go on to vote leave anyway lol 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
That Italian Guy posted:Southern Ireland has 1/5 of the population of London. Most of its population is in Dublin, a city as expensive as London, with a tech bubble in it. There are in fact more people living in the small dot in Dublin than the rest of that blue area. Again, this kind of visualization is nonsense when trying to gauge how well off a certain area is, cause the boundaries are set out in an inconsistent way. So why bother posting the map then?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
inner london - east (uki4) has a pps-adjusted per-capita output of 50,500, relative to southern ireland (ie05) of 63,000. this makes sense because it's: Hackney and Newham UKI41 Tower Hamlets UKI42 Haringey and Islington UKI43 Lewisham and Southwark UKI44 Lambeth UKI45 which contains a wide spectrum of income ranges, one might say. Outer London is even lower - 38,600, 26,900, and 21,700 of course inner london - west (uki3) has 188,000, but it's also really teeny on the map...
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:22
|
|
Z the IVth posted:So why bother posting the map then? Cause the first map shows how a lot of the poorest regions in "northern" europe are in the UK...but it picks "northern" regions excluding the real poor ones (like poland, latvia, estonia and lithuania) while including regions that are defo not northern (like Austria). It also doesn't display the size of these regions. The second map at least has a full display of both and the picture is quite different. Guavanaut posted:The whole point of the NUTS regions is to try and mark out standard areas for statistical analysis and the delivery of EU social grants and investment. For example, compare the way France is broken down compared to the UK:  That single large orange region in France could have several small red and several small yellow/blue regions in it if it was divided the same way a similar sized chunk of land is divided in on the UK map. Not knowing population levels is, again, a problem...but you can't really use these maps to say "the UK has a lot of poor areas compared to europe" in a meaningful way, the same way you can't say "southern ireland is the richest area in europe". If you'd wall off a small dot around Dublin the rest of that area would be as orange as the rest of Ireland. If the areas in central UK were all merged into an area the size of NI, they would be "yellower" than NI - or not, depending on which portions you merge together. That Italian Guy fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Mar 31, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
Katt posted:Pre WW2 Poland really gets too many breaks from history. To say that the USSR failed to beat them in the Polish-Soviet war is unfair. Lots of weird, possibly Tankie-based, inaccuracies here: - The Polish-Soviet War took place between 1919-1921. Poland's government wasn't a military dictatorship until Pilsudski's populist coup in 1926. Prior to that, he was just Chief of State, and there was a working Parliament (Sejm) which was dominated by a party that opposed Pilsudsky. - The Polish-Soviet War had very little to do with Poland wanting to "conquer lands". It was fought over a region of westernmost Ukraine and Belorussia that was in the process of being invaded by the USSR, and to dull the USSRs westward invasion of newly-formed East European states. - The context of the war is important. In 1918, Poland gained its independence for the first time in 123 years of German, Austrian and Russian bondage (as did many other East European states, with borders that were in flux). There was no real interest in Poland in rejoining some new Russian empire. - In November 1918 (!), the nascent Soviet Union (while still fighting the Civil War) formulated a plan (Target Vistula) and began a westward invasion of East Europe, marching on Estonia, Belorussia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ukraine. Lenin's intent was to conquer all the newly-independent East European states (regardless of whether they had democratic governments or not) and add them to the USSR (well, the RSFSR), and to eventually militarily support the German and Austrian worker revolutions, expanding the revolution into central Europe. Poland was definitely going to be a stepping stone in the process of that westward expansion (how else were they going to get to Germany and Austria?). Lenin believed that none of these new governments had any legitimacy and didn't even expect much resistance. Along the way, the new Soviet Western Army clashed with local self-defense forces and Polish self-defense forces that had been sent to assist these new governments (particularly in Lithuania and Belarus). Eventual, full-scale conflict was more or less inevitable. - By early 1919, there were clashes between the Polish army and the Red army in western Belarus, Latvia and Ukraine. However, Poland wasn't interested in conquering the USSR, but rather halting the westward advance of Soviet forces into Poland and establishing a buffer zone between Poland and the USSR. When Pilsudsky realized that the White Army under Denikin was doing well against the Red army near Moscow (and that Denikin had no interest in assuring Polish independence), he halted operations in Belarus and let the Red army focus on defeating the Whites. - Poland's war also wasn't a unilateral effort. Between 1919 and 1920, the governments of Latvia and Belarus had asked for Polish assistance in repelling Soviet forces (and Latvia saw the Poles as liberators). Negotiations broken down with Lithuania over Vilnius (a Lithuanian city with a Polish-majority located within the bounds of Lithuania). After defeating the Ukrainian Nationalist Front in 1919, Poland allied itself with Petliura's Ukranian People's Republic to attempt to push the Soviets out of Ukraine. These alliances were part of Pilsudski's plan to form the Intermarium, a voluntary federation of East European states to counter both Central European and Russian/Soviet imperialism. - By the end of 1920, the Polish attempt to liberate Kiev from Soviet forces and the Soviet attempt to conquer Warsaw had both failed. The USSR sued for peace when they were pushed back into Ukraine by the "Miracle at the Vistula". The Soviets conceded pretty much all of the lost territory, but the National Democrats (the leading party in the Sejm) opposed Pilsudski's idea of the Intermarium and gave back large swathes of it to the Soviets under the Peace of Riga. The resulting partition of Belarus and Ukraine weren't great, but they offered some form of independence for those states until the subsequent Soviet invasion of Poland. Poles generally didn't persecute ethnic minorities in their territories to the same extent that the Soviets ended up persecuting ethnic Poles, Ukrainians and Belorussians (see the massacres of Poles in 1937/1938). - In regards to Poland's treatment of Czechoslovakia, you kind of missed the part where the actual "partition" was the return to Poland of the border area of Zaolzie that Czechoslovakia had itself annexed from Poland during the Soviet-Polish war. Poland didn't participate in the invasion. In retrospect, should Poland have not pressured Czechoslovakia to surrender to Germany and joined Czechoslovakia in resisting German invasion? Yes. Were there a lot of hosed up political reasons, previous conflicts and empty promises (particularly from the garbage and indecisive political structures of England and France) that muddied this decision? Also Yes. I have a feeling you don't actually care about the history though... and your description of Finland's position vis-a-vis the USSR is also fundamentally skewed. Please read some history. You can be a leftist (including a "workers should own the means of production" leftist), without having to defend the USSR's various imperialist misadventures. Pembroke Fuse fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Mar 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:bullet train from Shanghai to Urumqi in the far western desert of China This is 4000km and does not exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
That Italian Guy posted:Cause the first map shows how a lot of the poorest regions in "northern" europe are in the UK...but it picks "northern" regions excluding the real poor ones (like poland, latvia, estonia and lithuania) while including regions that are defo not northern (like Austria). It also doesn't display the size of these regions. The second map at least has a full display of both and the picture is quite different. It is actually based on population, albeit with some leeway ( e: Here are the rules for it: quote:Level - Minimum - Maximum But within those bounds countries can do whatever they want; though it should be noted that for rural regions it is more financially advantageous to be distinct rather than lumped into a single more populous one, so generally they tend towards the lower bound of that scale. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Mar 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
That Italian Guy posted:Not knowing population levels is, again, a problem... In this case it really is. Your UK region contains Leeds (pop ~750k) Manchester (pop ~550k), Sheffield (pop ~550k), Nottingham (~350k), and at least some part of Birmingham which is over 1m by itself. Your region in France has the population centres of Le Mans (~150k), Tours (~150k), Orleans (~100k), and Bourges (~70k).
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Conservatives and to some extent Labour are against pr because they will lose out. Other parties are generally in favour The SNP would lose out, though. Theyre a minority party in the UK as a whole but not in Scotland, which obviously is the bit they care about. They have exactly the same issue as the Conservatives and Labour here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
In Central London you have one guy making 10 million and 9 guys making 15k, clearly since the average is close to a million, London is the richest place ever *achieves magical politician level power of statsbending*
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:53
|
|
Private Speech posted:It is actually based on population, albeit with some leeway ( The UK map may be split on population...but France, Italy and Spain are not. Those boundaries are 100% based on existing regions/administrative territories:    If one part of the maps is split up based on population and the rest isn't, you can't really compare "regions" between them, cause the individual units have not been created based on the same principles. Especially if you end up with France being divided into 21 Regions and the UK being split in double that, having less territory and population. If you compare a few large areas (France) against a lot of small ones (UK), France is going to have more average values, and the UK more extremes, even if they had the same exact data. That Italian Guy fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Mar 31, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
That Italian Guy posted:The UK map may be split on population...but France, Italy and Spain are not. Those boundaries are 100% based on existing regions/administrative territories: Again, it is split on population within the bounds set by the commission, which admittedly are somewhat wide. I get your point but that's the nature of it, you do get similar things with the congressional districts as mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:The SNP would lose out, though. Theyre a minority party in the UK as a whole but not in Scotland, which obviously is the bit they care about. They have exactly the same issue as the Conservatives and Labour here. Chesham and Amersham - SNP GAIN Pochoclo posted:In Central London you have one guy making 10 million and 9 guys making 15k, clearly since the average is close to a million, London is the richest place ever
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 17:57
|
|
Private Speech posted:Again, it is split on population within the bounds set by the commission, which admittedly are somewhat wide. I get your point but that's the nature of it, you do get similar things with the congressional districts as mentioned. Yeah I got this  The only thing I'm questioning is to use the first map to claim "the UK has a lot of the poorest areas in northern EU" without several disclaimers, like:- The UK has a lot more areas compared to the rest of the EU to begin with; - The number and size of these areas are determined using different criteria depending on the country; - Also we've forgot to add the real "poor" countries in northern europe, while adding some rich countries that are not northern
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
If you drill down to NUTS3 you get some significantly different results fyi with Germany not looking as rosy as on first appearances and with the richest London NUTS-3 level area (City of London and Camden) falling into fifth place behind Paris and Berlin
kustomkarkommando fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Mar 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
2 days after Brexit, I am proud to be British again. I have ordered a blue passport. I have paid £5.99 for a tomato. I haven't heard any weird languages at the hospital (or been seen by a doc) Life is good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
That Italian Guy posted:Yeah I got this Your map does a better job of that though, thanks. *okay, low GDP (PPS) per capita areas. **this would probably come out as coastal Lincs. on NUTS-3 owing to population, but a lot of the inland villages aren't so rich either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
Ratjaculation posted:I have paid £5.99 for a tomato. You paid money with the Queen's face on it for a...foreign fruit. Sounds suspiciously anti-British to me. *writes article in the Express*.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
Foreign vegetable. Since signing the comprehensive agricultural trade agreement with the USA, Nix v. Hedden applies and tomatoes aren't fruit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I'm getting v. angry at bad visualisations boy do I have the thread for you!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:The solution for Lincolnshire is more external funding. The solution for London is pitchforks and the guillotine. Given the provable fact that shittiness of politics is inversely proportional to population density, so the actual solution is the Reverse Pol Pot. If you live anywhere with a population under 500k, unless you're part of the ~1% of the population actually engaged in agricultural work, you should be forcibly relocated to a real city.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:
 Which one of the Scandi countries was this? Which one did it? goddamnedtwisto posted:Reverse Pol Pot. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Foreign vegetable. Since signing the comprehensive agricultural trade agreement with the USA, Nix v. Hedden applies and tomatoes aren't fruit. Citing foreign laws. Very anti-British. This is all going on the list, you know.  Also  , I do love it when the law is used to redefine specific objects for tax purposes, against a "technically proper" scientific definition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 14:19 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Top Lop?  i.e. you were right to begin with
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2019 18:40
|
|