Usually when people get older and start complaining about new "unpleasant people" the issue isn't that new unpleasant people exist. Rather, its that the older person has not adapted and is stuck. They become "get off my lawn" types
As someone who is 32 and takes public transport, if a homeless person gets on my train car and smells bad enough to stink up half (or all!) of the car, they have earned the "unpleasant people" label fair and square. Yes I understand it may be their only option, and I sympathize with them but it still makes my trip unpleasant.
It is, but it's also just something I see time and time and time again.
Every generation complains about how the world is going to shit and the yougins ain't got no respect and whatever particular segment of brown people at that time don't belong in their country.
I would have some sympathy if this wasn't, like, the millionth time this has happened.
So for some reason you're visiting 20 doctors and they all tell you "I will resell all your personal information to as many buyers as I can find, including sketchy ones, and to insurance companies which may raise your premiums depending on what you discuss with me" (I know it's illegal, it's an example), and you're blaming the law forcing them to confess this and giving you a chance to opt out?
At one of the FAANGs I work, it's a relatively smart autocomplete. Saw some examples of autogenerated e2e tests. I think it's quite decent as a language tutor.
But besides that, agree, not many good examples, and it's been a year since gpt-4 release.
An expat is someone who's not living in his home country, so yes, by definition... I think a lot of people use words without understanding their meanings
I am originally from one of the poorest countries, and my family constantly struggled with food for about 10 years. So I am well aware of the struggle. As well as I am exposed to poor people who immigrated to the US.
With all of that, no, I don't believe that there are people who actually starve in here. There are extensive food bank networks, generous religious organizations (most of them not that pushy), and in general people in the US are kind, despite what media says. I saw plenty of videos of people from my country showing food they got from a food bank, and most of them highlight how generous it is.
Despite all the struggle, my family never stole. And poor people around me rarely stole as well. Thieves whenever caught were judged by people around, and there was always social pressure to keep everything orderly.
What surprised my in the US is how normalized the whole thing is. It's always "stores have an insurance", "they are just trying to survive", and other excuses from people who never lived in poverty and just want to feel better about themselves.
> The US is home to over 4,700 FDIC-insured banks. It’s not far off from the EU, which has 5,171, but stop and consider that the EU consists of 27 countries. The UK currently has 365 banks, and Canada has 83
I shared the whole quote, but the goal was to just highlight that the number of banks is fairly similar.
I agree that the number of people is a better characteristic in this context, however the number of countries is important. EU has many different cultures, languages, regulations, so they have to have more banks. But looking at data, despite these considerations, EU still has worse competition. So still not sure what exactly parent meant.
How silly. Per million people the US has 14.1 banks, which is only slightly more than the EU's 11.5. I don't really know what's up with the UK and Canada, but there's probably some economic variable I'm not considering.
Can you imagine if the number of banks per country was constant?
The number of banks is not a good indicator of how much competition exists in a market. The elasticity of prices in that market is a better measure, but also has flaws. In general you need to look at how much margin a given industry is pulling in to determine how much leverage it has.
On the bank metric:
There are plenty of quasi non functional FDIC insured banks that are used as vehicles for reverse takeovers to allow a market entrant to avoid the hassle of obtaining their licenses.
Additionally given the substantially increased variability within different European markets we'd expect significantly different competitive dimensions between regional and international tier banks.
These numbers have strong historical reasons. The US had unit banking leading to a gigantic explosion in banks and this number has been going down as bank merge since the end of unit banking in the 30s.
Canada on the other hand had branch banking, meaning a few insitution each covering the whole country. So Canada had very far fewer banks historically.
During the Great Depression many 1000$ of banks failed in the US and none in Canada.
Forgive me but this kind of comparison is hilarious, given Europe is smaller in area, has more population and way more different countries than the USA.
You are saying like it's any different in Europe.
Dassault Systèmes CEO Bernard Charlès makes €20.6m with company revenue of $6.05 billion.
For reference, Google CEO made $226 million (~10x) with company revenue of $279.8 billions (~46x).
Taxes in the US aren't actually that much lower than in other countries - and the exploitation of all your juicey tax loopholes usually requires a pretty expensive accountant not accessible to the average person.
Without taking into account compensation difference (that is also significant), almost no other developed country has such favorable tax regime (again ignoring temporary programs). Check an average FAANG salary on levelsfyi for seniors and compare how much would someone pay taxes on it in Germany.
Americans spend as much public money on healthcare as is typical in similarly wealthy countries. This is a fact; check it yourself if you don't believe me. We pay for an NHS and all we get is this lousy Medicare.
The American system brutalizes poor people because it's cruel and stupid. It doesn't save you a dime on your taxes.
