Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

52 Places to Go in 2016

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 141 posts

Re: 52 Places to Go in 2016

#121

Post by JAFTEM »

ohitsdom wrote: post #39
JAFTEM wrote: 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.

Haven't been to North Dakota, but a few years ago I went to Montana (parts look very similar to the picture they included). It was almost by chance I went, didn't really have a hand in planning the trip but- It was absolutely breath-taking, and I won't forget how it felt to stand in those hilly fields for a long time. Being at the exact same spot as the Battle of Little Big Horn, walking in quiet with no cell phone s…

Oh yeah, Montana is absolutely beautiful. When I moved to California for school I drove through and was absolutely amazed. Western ND is like eastern Montana, which is much different than western Montana. Then ND gets incredibly flat like the picture in the article as you go east. Most people from Montana really don't like eastern Montana.

Re: 52 Places to Go in 2016

#122

Post by sliverstorm »

kriro wrote: 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.

Italy is about the same size as New Mexico. Perhaps it is reasonable to expect, if people know Italy is in Europe, that they might also know Rhode Island is in the United States?

Re: 52 Places to Go in 2016

#124

Post by Analog24 »

donretag wrote: post #76

19. Virunga National Park - Democratic Republic of Congo The Eastern part of the DRC is still a dangerous place to go with still ongoing guerrilla activity. "Getting there requires a flight to Kigali, Rwanda, and a three-hour taxi ride." "While a park spokeswoman said there have been no reports of unfriendly encounters between rebels and tourists, the eastern D.R.C. remains an unpredictable area that calls for sensib…

You bring up some good points about the DRC but I have to disagree with you on Phnom Penh. It was, and still is, one of my favorite cities I've ever visited. At the same time, I find it hard to express in words why I liked it so much. I think part of it is just that compared to the rest of SE Asia (at least the parts I've visited: Thailand, Laos, and Siem Reap), Phnom Penh just seemed more authentic and real compared to all the tourist traps that spot the rest of the region.

That being said, it was almost ten years ago since I was there and I'm sure their tourism industry has grown. In addition, My comments about other countries being touristy is limited to the places that I went (and this is certainly a biased sample).

Re: 52 Places to Go in 2016

#125

Post by zokier »

akie wrote: 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?

While 31 megs is quite a lot indeed, there is also good amount of content on the page too. I find it far more offensive when pages use couple megs for some short news article with maybe two small pictures.

Re: 52 Places to Go in 2016

#126

Post by WildUtah »

infecto wrote: post #70
username223 wrote: post #61

Mexico City as #1? Really? Having been there recently, my main objective was to get the hell out of the teeming city and its pool of horrible smog without being killed by the crazy drivers. The rest of Mexico is quite nice, but stay out of the cities.

I had the opposite experience. Such a beautiful city with rich history and culture. Driving was pretty sane. There is indeed air pollution but its been getting lower as the years go along. It is not a perfect city but one of my favorite cities to go visit.

I'm surprised by parent and gp. Mexico City is beautiful and interesting and full of things to do, but driving a car there is a nightmare. My first fifteen minutes behind the wheel there changed my view of traffic and laws forever.

I suggest visiting without a car. If you need one to get to places outside the city, rent only when you're leaving and ask for exact advice about the easiest way out of town.

Re: 52 Places to Go in 2016

#129

Post by ericzawo »

mladenkovacevic wrote: post #106
jedrek wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Resident thinks their city is less exciting than exotic locale? Well that's unexpected! Seriously though, I live in a city where locals keep discouraging tourists from coming, and tourists keep talking about how great it is. Part of it is due to how stuff that makes a city fun is different for the two groups, but also because locals don't treat their cities as special. When we travel somewhere, we take advantage of e…

You're right there is an element of that, but I think I'm fairly objective about Toronto because I wasn't born here and I tend to visit a lot of other cities as well. At the end of the day, you simply can't get around the weather. If you're really in the mood for snow, NYC is definitely more exciting around Christmas-time, and even Ottawa, Montreal or Quebec City have more going on in terms of public events. Toronto'…

Fellow Torontonian here, you sound incredibly boring. Maybe stop and look at how many people are walking around downtown tonight and around City Hall skating and at the Distillery District and going to the clubs and

Re: 52 Places to Go in 2016

#130

Post by chisness »

donretag wrote: post #120
chisness wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was in Virunga this summer and it was quite special and I would absolutely recommend it over Rwanda if you're willing to accept a bit of a more difficult process and journey. I went on four gorilla treks and on average was with only one other tourist. In Rwanda, you'll usually be in a group of eight. This is significant as great viewing angles can be in short supply. Other reasons to go: -You get a behind the scene…

I did my trekking in Uganda. It is $350 if you go during the right time of year. My group had 8 people, but I did not find the viewing angles limited. The only limitation with a bigger group is that you may be affected is someone is not physically capable of trekking to a remote spot. The gorillas are not in plain view, the scouts will tell you where they are. "you are constantly in the hands of Virunga vehicles/lodg…

Angles - yeah, usually not so bad, but being alone or only with 1 other person is very special

Security - fair

$350 at right time of the year - by right time, you mean "bad"/rainy time when they offer discounts (May/Nov I believe) :) - I have had excellent experiences in the rain, but I'm not sure that I'd recommend a first timer go for that $350 rate

Post reply on HN