Fun fact: Unlike most US place names, San Francisco's Chinese name is not a simple transliteration. The name 旧金山 Jiùjīnshān ("Old Gold Mine," literally "Old Gold Mountain") dates back to the Gold Rush of the 19th century.
No, it literally says it's based on the median at the bottom.
china has outlawed depictions of whiney the poo
https://www.shanghaidisneyresort.com/en/entertainment/theme-park/characters-meet-pooh/
Hmm I played Humankind when it first came out but was left wanting. I should probably check it out again and see what's changed.
Yes, the author chose that word and the content of the article suggests it's meant as respecting countries' sovereignty and reducing the concentration of global political power.
NASA does a lot of aviation experiments actually. They're not making an airliner, they're just making a test vehicle to learn how to reduce sonic boom noise.
Cumulative death toll estimate is about a billion. If you use black book logic, you can maybe push it up to 10 billion lol
I passed my polisci class
Well, it's a public forum... But if you ask us not to make top-level comments in your meta post, I believe it's against our rules to go against your wishes.
I was browsing new, and it's just very silly so I had to comment. I'm not being inflammatory so it's OK.
This would be one of the funnier defederation reasons so I support it on behalf of hexbear
You're getting yourself worked up over Papakangahorohoro Road. Take a chill pill!
The rest of the world won't be affected, so it doesn't matter.
If Japan keeps using nuclear reactors, someone might die of cancer one day. In order to protect the environment, Japan should burn fossil gas instead!
Hoatzin babies use their claws to climb before they become full-fledged wings. Super cool! !shocked-dino
There's nothing wrong with 5% growth in China
Here is an interesting article comparing the economic development of China with Japan. The key argument is that Japan's explosive GDP growth was based on a property bubble and that China was following in its footsteps. However, the government has recently addressed the bubble. As a result, annual growth will be 5% instead of 6-8%, but there won't be several lost decades.
I think there's a lot of merit to this, but there are a couple points they could have addressed. No distinction is made between productive GDP (energy, manufacturing, construction, etc.) and unproductive GDP (FIRE economy). So yes there was a construction bubble, but how much of that was real compared to fictitiously high property prices that you see in America and Japan? The article also asserts that 5% growth is normal for an economy that is China's size, but why should we expect the same growth for semi-planned economies and unplanned economies? And then there is the graph at the end showing expected annual growth depending on size of the economy. If China shedding its bubble brings it down to the expected 5%, then surely all capitalist economies would be underperforming if they shed FIRE.