Live data from Hacker News

52 Places to Go in 2016

nytimes.com

51–60 of 141 posts

Re: 52 Places to Go in 2016

#51
post #42
post #16

This is a beautiful page, but my god, is it heavy. I'm counting 171 separate requests totaling 31 Mb - excluding the videos. I've not even loaded all videos, and my total is at over 400 Mb now.... Is this acceptable now?

> This is a beautiful page, but my god, is it heavy I'm already looking forward to the Oculus Rift version :)

stop trying to make Oculus Rift a thing

Re: 52 Places to Go in 2016

#52
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a beautiful page, but my god, is it heavy I'm already looking forward to the Oculus Rift version :)

stop trying to make Oculus Rift a thing

Upvoted for the Mean Girls reference. Oculus Rift is going to be a real thing, though, whether we like it or not.

Re: 52 Places to Go in 2016

#53
post #8

It always amuses me that that it's "Turin, Italy" but "Providence, Rhode Island". I guess they assume an American audience but it's still strange that they don't mention the country for places in the US of A.

The New York Times is still, despite its reach, a newspaper for New York, New York, US.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/08/nyregion/new-york-today-in...

Re: 52 Places to Go in 2016

#54

53. Nepal.

Haha, they missed us this year? Nepal seems to have a permanent stranglehold on lists like these. It's not surprising, with the earthquake and the ('not a') blockade, they might have wanted to skip this year.

Love Nepal. Running my startup out of Kathmandu....although we face 14 hours of power shortages, a crazy political blockade, shortages in every item imaginable including medicine, silly government taxes and restrictions...the Nepalese people are some of the best I have ever met. To sum up, come and visit, you won't regret it...

Re: 52 Places to Go in 2016

#57
post #8

It always amuses me that that it's "Turin, Italy" but "Providence, Rhode Island". I guess they assume an American audience but it's still strange that they don't mention the country for places in the US of A.

Have you read the New York times? As someone who lives ~5 hours away from New York, it is still occasionally hyper-local to where I don't recognize the names of places it mentions.

I have no idea why an American newspaper, NYT or otherwise, would be writing for anything other than an American audience.

Re: 52 Places to Go in 2016

#58
post #14
post #6

Having grown up in North Dakota, I am deeply confused why tourists would want to visit any part of it (#5). I'm shocked it shares a list with Barcelona and Carribean islands.

I'm interpreting the list as "52 places you might not have considered" because in each of their categories (national park, metro, attractions, etc.) many obvious - and IMO better - choices are avoided, at least for the US.

Agreed - it would likely be trivial to come up with a list of 52 tourist meccas that everyone's heard of. Washington, DC, London, Moscow, etc - I mean you could probably visit the 52 largest national capitals and have a great tourist experience.

It's nice to see a list with places I never would have considered, even if it is odd to see ND and St. John on the same list.

Re: 52 Places to Go in 2016

#59
If you go to St. Louis, make sure to visit the City Museum (http://www.citymuseum.org/). It is an incredible, unique playground to explore for children and adults alike. It is hard to explain what it is and explanations don't do it justice. To this day it is our fondest memory from the trip to St. Louis.

Re: 52 Places to Go in 2016

#60
post #19

Very short reviews of the places on the list that I've already seen: * Brno, Czech Republic - I stayed there just a few days, but even though pretty, the city wasn't very exciting. It's quite cheap and less touristic than Prague, so if you're looking for something less crowded than the capital, it might be a good choice to experience Czech culture * Barcelona, Spain - one of the most touristic places in Europe, but i…

Malaga during the 3rd week of August is crazy, during the Feria de Malaga. I confirm that it's a good place to stay for short trips around. If someone likes nice beaches without a lot of people I recommend to go to some beaches in the Cabo de Gata-Níjar natural park.
Post reply on HN