IMO the problem with GDP is it's basically always normalized in USD, and USD isn't that universally representative of units of production/utility.
I mean, not to be political, but there's probably a place somewhere on Earth selling 10 standard chicken eggs for 540 local coins that's equivalent to $0.01 by the official government rates then-and-there, and the idea of GDP being meaningful means they must be either producing something like thousands of eggs per hour per employee or they live with something like a single pieces of chocolate worth of calories per day. And it's really not like that.
I'm sure GDP figures normalized on local consumer price index will have its own flaws, but especially USD-normalized GDP feels wrong to me in that regards.
Most Japanese people are sooo slow in speeches in English that there will be too much of those you-shoulds to the point that just typing would be easier.
Standard Japanese public education through to college/university include ~1k hours total of English classes, changing but still focused on word-for-word translations.
The goal and aim of those classes (I think) is so that 21st century Japanese engineers can decode foreign scientific papers and encode export user manuals on their own.
And so Japanese engineers can interpret and compose English text files as, one would handle C-like code. Consequently read/write data rates as well as emotional grasp are closer to that for code than speech, and the ability also gets dubious quick for anything "platform" specific and not literal. Like, even "to pull off" will cause an exception and quick jump/return with "achieve". It would be fair to say that calling it English literacy is a bit of a stretch.
It will do for many purposes, so in that sense, yes, Japanese people do know English.
There are people(not me) from rich or otherwise unique backgrounds or educated before WWII who use actual English and not that embedded English Lite, they're rare.
Emojis are stupid, but Japanese phone industry was weaponizing it to segregate smartphones into a niche subclass of non-serious phone-likes than actually usable phones, and so Google/Apple shoved it into Unicode to fill that moat. In hindsight, Slack style :emoji-name: notation might have done better for all, but Unicode emoji was what happened.
> What happens when 1.5B come knocking because if they stay they die?
Like let them build few of those sci-fi domes and let them keep buying disposable bottled oxygen? I don't get the pessimism. India makes its own rockets. Pakistan has nukes. Why are they supposed to be incapable of holding the nation together on Mars-like Earth?
Tokyo is already hitting 40C/100F at >90% RH during summers. It's already mildly unsurvivable. Nobody cares. Maybe in 10-20 years we'd be wearing spacesuits, but do anyone seriously think the equatorial regions will be uninhabitable and land prices on northern Europe is going to skyrocket???
IMO "build quality" is not the right term here. At least to me, "build quality" refers to how evenly examples are made and how close the real world examples adheres to manufacturing blueprints.
If finishes and gaps are tight, all around bodies and across examples, the build quality is GOOD. If every units looked slightly different and some were outright broken straight out of the box, then the build quality is BAD. Even if they were worthy of included in the MoMA collection.
Both Microsoft and Apple(or their paid Chinese outsources) are top notch. Every units looks the same and flats on the bodies are really flat. Industrial design and usability, like sharp corners and fugly aesthetics, are different issues entirely.
You're right. "Build Quality" isn't the right term.
Maybe "Overall Quality" or "Device Quality" would work better. The point is that my MBP has held up MUCH better over time than my Surface, which is barely able to charge at this point.
Manufacturing tolerance is the term for "how close are they all to being the same shape?" Good tolerances are usually a prerequisite to good build quality, but not always.
For instance, cast iron pans can have poor tolerances (be off by fractions of inches), but, as long as they're not warped, and the metallurgy is solid, they could last centuries, and people would say they have good build quality.
On the other hand, a stainless steel pan that's volumetrically-perfect, but has faulty internal welds on the laminated bottom could fall apart after a few uses due to heat strain snapping the welds. That'd be terrible build quality.
1: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2717852/
reply