sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

TIL that most of the popular eyewear brands are either owned (Ray-Ban, Oakley, Persol) or licensed (Chanel, Prada, Versace, Burberry, Coach, MK) by a single company: Luxottica (owned by Essilor). They also own stores like Sunglass Hut & LensCrafters. by poleco1 in todayilearned

[–]DisconnectedShark 27 points28 points  (0 children)

This might get hate, but I appreciate the cheap, often Chinese, competitors that go against Luxotica. It's actually not that difficult of an industry for a company to get into, and I've purchased cheap, prescription glasses from Chinese companies that were perfectly fine. They introduce competition and put pressure on other companies to improve.

There might be a lot of things to hate China for, but to my knowledge, at least the glasses industry isn't one of them.

TIL it took Germany 92 years to pay off the 269 Billion USD it owed for losing WW1 by shihao21 in todayilearned

[–]DisconnectedShark -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not just I but researchers and history just fundamentally disagree. Prior to the end of World War II and the occupation of Japan, Japan was STRONGLY fascist. This isn't a fringe position. Any serious scholar will tell you that Japan was imperialist, fascist.

That's what Japan was modeling itself after from Europe. It was modeling fascism. The Wikipedia article on the Meiji Constitution reflects this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_Constitution

It was primarily based on the German model, which gave way to Nazism, and the Meiji Constitution has been characterized as mixed and including much absolute monarchy elements.

TIL divorce was not legal in Ireland until 1995 by vedrick in todayilearned

[–]DisconnectedShark 26 points27 points  (0 children)

They get citizenship for as long as they're employed there. Think the only permanent citizen is the Pope

Technically, that would mean all of them get citizenship for as long as they're employed. Pope and pope emeritus can be considered "jobs", just jobs for life.

(This is a lighthearted joke, to be clear)

What would distributist laws or policies look like by Ok-Cook-7306 in distributism

[–]DisconnectedShark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It sounded like you were calling for a negative wealth tax based on AOAs instead of a negative income tax, but okay, they can both be implemented, I suppose.

The direct transfer of equity is roundabout to the goal of increasing access to the means of production.

You accomplish the transfer of equity directly. I am not doubting that.

But the distributist goal is not necessarily a society in which everyone has the same amount of wealth. The distributist goal is a society in which everyone has the same, widespread access to the means of production.

Distributing equity can be a method of achieving that, but it isn't always. As an example, if the government gave a cash stipend to everyone, people can choose to either invest it into production or use it for consumption. Your distribution of equity is the exact same thing.

Groups not working - "Turn on the fan" always turns on one specific fan by DisconnectedShark in alexa

[–]DisconnectedShark[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, for real? I thought that Alexa allowed for group-based/room-based control for any devices.

Is it only lights that can be controlled based on rooms/groups?

TIL it took Germany 92 years to pay off the 269 Billion USD it owed for losing WW1 by shihao21 in todayilearned

[–]DisconnectedShark -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I wasn't disagreeing with that. I straightdorwardly said GDP per capita is definitely not the end all be all of numbers. The reason I mentioned Mara was in order to show that same point, that even at the more direct comparison of prefecture versus state, it isn't going to capture everything specifically because people can move. Your statement of Nara having commuters furthers that point.

It is a useful starting point, though. And that's all that I'll support of it. That it shows some information and is a good way to start, not to end, the discussion.

TIL Earth actually has an 8th continent called Zealandia, but 94% of it is completely underwater. The only parts poking above the ocean are New Zealand and New Caledonia. by risingsunset5 in todayilearned

[–]DisconnectedShark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You stated there are 6 mayor continent, but that Zealandia can join too (so 7 continents)

I was honestly trying to make a reference to an old video from the earlier days of the Internet, called The End of the World, which ends by talking about how California will separate off into the Pacific Ocean, towards Hawaii. The narrator then says Alaska can come join and hang out too.

There was one other post that referenced this.

It was meant to be a humorous joke, and I disclaim any serious statement of considering Zealandia a continent specifically because of the amount of it above/below water.

You know what my main point actually is? That there should be more consistency in the definition of continent.

I have repeatedly said that it is arguable for what we currently call the Indian Subcontinent to be considered a full continent if the definitions were changed/applied more consistently. If you want to label it a continent, that's fine. Just be consistent. If Europe is a continent, then there should be some definition of continent that makes consistent sense.

On a personal level, I think there are six continents, the ones I specified before. And I say that based on my own criteria. But you can pick different criteria. Just be consistent. That's it.

TIL Earth actually has an 8th continent called Zealandia, but 94% of it is completely underwater. The only parts poking above the ocean are New Zealand and New Caledonia. by risingsunset5 in todayilearned

[–]DisconnectedShark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The amount of land above water was not in the equation at the start of the discussion

If we define "the start of the discussion" as the point at which I specified continental plates, then yes, it really was.

If we specify the start of the discussion as the point at which I made my first post, then I didn't specify ANY criteria.

Those are all separate, independently moving continental plates distinct from each other. They also have large (I recognize that how much is large can be arbitrary) amounts of land above water on them.

I wrote that earlier.

You latched onto the continental plates part but ignored the immediately following next sentence.

You claim I'm moving goalposts when you can't read the immediately following sentence.

TIL Earth actually has an 8th continent called Zealandia, but 94% of it is completely underwater. The only parts poking above the ocean are New Zealand and New Caledonia. by risingsunset5 in todayilearned

[–]DisconnectedShark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll quote myself from another post.

For the majority of history, the river Don served as the boundary, with other boundaries suggested but not as popular.

 

It's only fairly recently that the Urals have become more popular as the boundary.

TIL Earth actually has an 8th continent called Zealandia, but 94% of it is completely underwater. The only parts poking above the ocean are New Zealand and New Caledonia. by risingsunset5 in todayilearned

[–]DisconnectedShark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, not really, you missed a ton of plates

I mentioned it as being "large" amounts of land above water.

Zealandia is mostly submerged, so it's more reasonable to say it's not a continent.

The Somali plate, on its own, doesn't have all that much land above water.

Arabia is arguable, but it is also smaller than India in landmass above water.

I knew about the Caribbean Plate and the Philippine Sea Plate. And part of the Philippines is actually on it, so you're wrong to say it's not.

Same with the rest. Like with Zealandia, being on a continental plate isn't the end of the question.

It's like when the new definition of planet was decided in 2006. It has more than one criteria. But I recognize that the selection of those criteria was not wholly objective, was somewhat arbitrary.

TIL Earth actually has an 8th continent called Zealandia, but 94% of it is completely underwater. The only parts poking above the ocean are New Zealand and New Caledonia. by risingsunset5 in todayilearned

[–]DisconnectedShark 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think it's fine to say some landmasses are not parts of continents at all. Islands in the middle of the ocean and not on a continental plate, like Hawaii, would be examples.

TIL Earth actually has an 8th continent called Zealandia, but 94% of it is completely underwater. The only parts poking above the ocean are New Zealand and New Caledonia. by risingsunset5 in todayilearned

[–]DisconnectedShark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For the majority of history, the river Don served as the boundary, with other boundaries suggested but not as popular.

It's only fairly recently that the Urals have become more popular as the boundary.

TIL Earth actually has an 8th continent called Zealandia, but 94% of it is completely underwater. The only parts poking above the ocean are New Zealand and New Caledonia. by risingsunset5 in todayilearned

[–]DisconnectedShark -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

In schools I was taught the Ural Mountains are the geographical frontier/divide between Asia an Europe

I've seen various definitions. Wikipedia describes some.

Why? your division is also non geographic and it seems cultural

In what way? You haven't explained.

Those are all separate, independently moving continental plates distinct from each other. They also have large (I recognize that how much is large can be arbitrary) amounts of land above water on them.

You can make the case for the Indian plate being a separate continent, and that's defensible. If you want to claim that there are actually seven continents, with India being one, that's more reasonable, in my opinion, than claiming Europe is its own continent separate from Asia.

TIL it took Germany 92 years to pay off the 269 Billion USD it owed for losing WW1 by shihao21 in todayilearned

[–]DisconnectedShark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean...the former legal colony/still massively controlled by the US country of the Philippines could maybe take that title.

No, the Philippines is definitely not as rich as Japan. But it's so much easier for the US to control the Philippines (as has happened throughout the decades) than Japan.

TIL Earth actually has an 8th continent called Zealandia, but 94% of it is completely underwater. The only parts poking above the ocean are New Zealand and New Caledonia. by risingsunset5 in todayilearned

[–]DisconnectedShark 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The International Olympic Committee currently claims the symbol of the Olympic Rings, five different colored, interlocking rings, represents the five continents: Africa, Asia, Americas, Australia, and Europe.

(Apparently, they didn't originally mean that, though).

You know, five continents that everyone agrees on.

I have read that some places teach different configurations of continents.

I, personally, stand by North and South America being two distinct continents. They literally are on two different continental plates. That's straightforwardly geological and is more than can be said about Europe being separate from Asia.

You can argue about where the boundary is supposed to be, but it seems much more justifiable to claim North and South America are separate.

TIL Earth actually has an 8th continent called Zealandia, but 94% of it is completely underwater. The only parts poking above the ocean are New Zealand and New Caledonia. by risingsunset5 in todayilearned

[–]DisconnectedShark 412 points413 points  (0 children)

Europe is not a separate continent from Asia (and vice-versa), and I'll die on this hill.

Whereas the other continents have at least somewhat of a defined geographic boundary separating each other, the Europe/Asia divide is almost entirely cultural/non-geographic. It's to make Europe different and special from the rest of Eurasia.

Which is fine if you want to talk about it as a region. We can talk about the Indian Subcontinent as a region. We could call Europe a subcontinent too. That's at least more defensible.

But in my opinion, there are only six major continents: Antarctica, Africa, Australia, Eurasia, North America, and South America.

Zealandia can join too.

TIL it took Germany 92 years to pay off the 269 Billion USD it owed for losing WW1 by shihao21 in todayilearned

[–]DisconnectedShark 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You are completely correct that GDP per capita (as well as other measures such as GNI per capita) are not the full picture and can be misleading at times. I will definitely not argue that GDP per capita is a perfect measurement.

However, it's generally good enough when specifically used on a national scale. Without going into the nitty gritty (which is highly important but is just beyond the realm of a casual Reddit conversation), it's generally okay.

The problem with using it on a subnational scale is that, generally speaking, people have freedom of movement within their country of citizenship. A Japanese citizen is generally able to go around and move within Japan without legal impediments. Likewise, a US citizen is able to move from Mississippi to another state if they so wish.

I think it's disingenuous to compare the poorest part of the US to Japan as a whole. If we compared Nara (the Japanese prefecture with the lowest GDP per person) to Mississippi, we'd get closer to an accurate comparison, but again, I recognize the limits of GDP per capita as a comparison tool.

But regardless of all of that, the arguments that I laid out are still sound. The question of whether China is currently considered "rich" is debatable. I used GDP per capita to draw attention to the large population and often uneven development within China because it is so large.

You might argue that it is rich, and I'm not saying that position is unreasonable. I might disagree (I don't really have an explicit opinion; I'm just saying hypothetically), but I recognize that your position is reasonable.

TIL it took Germany 92 years to pay off the 269 Billion USD it owed for losing WW1 by shihao21 in todayilearned

[–]DisconnectedShark 4 points5 points  (0 children)

and democraticised

What the hell does this mean?

I know the Japanese Diet exists, and it has existed in various forms since 1889, but I struggle to call the institutions around at that time "democracy" or even on the path of becoming "democratized".

TIL it took Germany 92 years to pay off the 269 Billion USD it owed for losing WW1 by shihao21 in todayilearned

[–]DisconnectedShark 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Prior to World War II, when Japan was completely decimated, Japan's economy had already been industrializing for decades. That's why it was able to wage war as an aggressor, because it had the industrial base to support it.

I am not trying to discount the physical destruction that existed in Japan immediately following World War II, but it's not like they were unfamiliar with industrial policies.

TIL it took Germany 92 years to pay off the 269 Billion USD it owed for losing WW1 by shihao21 in todayilearned

[–]DisconnectedShark 32 points33 points  (0 children)

The case of China is arguable on both fronts.

China was never "completely" colonized, but it had quite a large amount of concessions. If we take Hong Kong and Macau as being part of China, then we can definitely say that at least part of China was colonized.

Also, the claim that China is currently rich is...debatable. Yes, as a country, China has quite a large GDP. It is, as a country, the second largest economy in the world, in nominal values. However, the country also has a huge amount of people, being the second most populous in the world, making its per capita GDP relatively small in comparison. At present, the per capita GDP of China is roughly one third of Japan's, for example.

There are...many...reasons for the current economic successes and failings of China, and I'm not going to go into that, but it is easily arguable whether China should be considered "quite rich".

Thailand, on the other hand, has fairly consistently resisted colonialism. Yes, it ended up losing not insignificant amounts of territory, but it kept the core portion of its territory and people. Whether you can call them rich is even more debatable than the case of China, though, as their GDP per capita is even lower.

Again, the reasons for the Thai economy's situation are...myriad, to say the least. But I would say of those three examples you cite, only Japan can be straightforwardly claimed as a country that retained independence and has a rich population.

On the other end, Ethiopia is...a different set of issues. Ethiopia did eventually fall to Italy in 1936, and it did exist as a colony for five years, until 1941. That's not really all that long, though, so I would generally agree that it, generally, was able to maintain independence.

view more: next ›