61–70 of 122 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A practical issue- if you have a world-distributed workforce or an international news agency, what's the best geographical location for the headquarters?
Are we channeling through internet cabling or magical straight lines?
Sufficiently advanced technology
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/mar/19/neutrin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An order of magnitude higher and it'd be of similar magnitude to the entire USA. I tend to think of Australia as pretty similar (if literally polar opposite) to Canada. Similar population and standard of living on a similarly large but largely inhospitable landmass.
Australia is basically Hot Canada.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
London has long benefitted from its position allowing its working day overlapping everywhere from the US West coast to Japan, even if barely at those extremes. Most of the world's population lies between UTC-5 and UTC+5 I believe.
Given India is UTC+5.5 and China is UTC+8, plus many other large countries are outside that range (Indonesia, Japan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Phillipines) I think you need to stretch it a bit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quite probably only if we're ignoring the z-axis (depth), at least when talking over minerals. I think it will be a game-changer if a few km of rock won't be a hindrance anymore. If that ever comes, that is.
Some elements are kind of well distributed but not others: gold for example, or minerals or hydrocarbons, or even wind.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/gold-ocean-sea-hoax-sc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
London has long benefitted from its position allowing its working day overlapping everywhere from the US West coast to Japan, even if barely at those extremes. Most of the world's population lies between UTC-5 and UTC+5 I believe.
Given India is UTC+5.5 and China is UTC+8, plus many other large countries are outside that range (Indonesia, Japan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Phillipines) I think you need to stretch it a bit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends where you draw the line. The 5 boroughs alone is about 8M, but the broader metropolitan area is something like 20. (And even beyond that it's still pretty densely populated compared to most places.)
The broader metropolitan is not usually what people consider as NYC. New York state maybe
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A practical issue- if you have a world-distributed workforce or an international news agency, what's the best geographical location for the headquarters?
London has long benefitted from its position allowing its working day overlapping everywhere from the US West coast to Japan, even if barely at those extremes. Most of the world's population lies between UTC-5 and UTC+5 I believe.
So if you want to be as close as possible to as many people as possible, somewhere in Myanmar would be a better choice than London.
Of course the calculus changes if you also consider how much money each of these people has access to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. 7 billion people => 7000 Million. 1% of that, 70 Million. Population of australia, 25.7 Million people. So not only less than 1%, less than 0.5%
Holy crap, Australia has approximately the same population as New York City. That's nearly an order of magnitude less than I would have guessed. I had no idea!