Interesting Graphs/InfographicsMaps/Etc thread
234 replies · 28013 views
Not really, want bitches not submissive women. 
7 minutes ago, Stromboli1 said:Not really, want bitches not submissive women.
Something's mentally wrong with you to want "bitches"
You can be a bitch with a good heart, they're really softies and the best at sex too. 
selfish, uses blackmail tactics. waste of time, waste of money, waste of energy...
Not if you tame them, they're like a wild colt.
22 hours ago, Stromboli1 said:
Ah, the Economist! Very interesting newspaper, with very thorough articles.
They work hard, their journalists are very professional and they use a lot of facts, but... they have a couple of biases:
- on macroeconomic matters, they will always take the most liberal point of view (but it's not always the best viewing angle)
- on competition matters, they have very little concern for private oligopolies, which is paradoxical for liberals, and, which is a big weakness, since oligopolies are one of the most important economic subject nowadays for anyone who decently want to look at the situation.
They are vehement on public monopolies; why not, but they are so vehement that they keep being satistfied when breaking the monopoly creates private duopolies/oligopolies (which is - by far - not better!!)
- on political matters, if I try to summarize (very roughly) they call "democracy" a state which is parliamentary regime, with a (very) strong judicial power, a strong parliament, and a more or less unstable executive power. Let's summarize (even more roughly): their ideal regime is the the UK..... 
So, unsurprisingly, Canada, which is the best pupil of UK, get the best mark (well done Justin!). Now, we (the barbarians from the other side of the Channel) don't agree with this conception and we think that the executive power should be stable and strong, with a direct link with the people.
Their methodolgy for their index calculation is opaque. So, without more explanations, I kinda think that they are a little biased...
6 hours ago, Stromboli1 said:
110 km/h is too slooooow, you barbarians!
I heard that China was under only one time zone (it has 1/5th of the world's population.)
Closest Derbies in the Top 5 Leagues.
On 12/3/2018 at 6:05 PM, Enrico_sw said:
Ah, the Economist! Very interesting newspaper, with very thorough articles.
They work hard, their journalists are very professional and they use a lot of facts, but... they have a couple of biases:
I scanned the Economist for many years in my 20s. It's a UK magazine that's "Conservative" from their POV but from an american POV it's a liberal magazine- left of center, mainstream Democrat. A person who studied in business school and studied economics would like the magazine. I always liked its broad, world wide scope but was cautious about certain of its traits.
The writers of the articles have little accountability as they do not sign off in the magazine. They do not seem to be subject matter experts. Also, a lot of articles are space-wasters and say little with too much. While it's good that it's a platform for influential intellectuals and universities to disseminate their ideas- and it takes these findings as gospel. Also, the magazine is openly anti-Republican. I am not interested in seeing political agendas of any kind in a periodical and immediately ignore articles that have it.
On a more positive note, at least there are no insane articles that one can find in far left or far right periodicals.
^ Yeah, it's definitely a professional magazine (and I used to read it a lot as well). It has biases but at least it tries to be factual and there clearly do a lot of work/research.
I've started to grow tired of it, when I saw that they really neglect the question of antitrust/competition (which is a central question IMHO).
World population in 1939 and in 2017
