> It's also a total dump. Very disorganized 3rd world country. Thailand in contrast is an order of magnitude more developed, especially Bangkok.

> before you all go Woah, Nepal is so awesome

I am curious what triggered you to write such a negative comment. The article did not give me the impression of a nationalistic rag or a puff-piece trying to hide flaws. Rather, just as the title says, it is about "Remote working in Nepal: What it’s like now in 2017". The author gave useful and balanced descriptions and comparisons as far as I can tell.

I've never heard someone intelligent dismiss an entire country as a "total dump", let alone a place that's well known for scenic views like Nepal. Even a novice traveller knows that developing countries have infrastructure issues like trash management and that one's quality of life will not be equivalent to Palo Alto. That said, even our own "premier" cities have spots that are trashy. Heck, it wasn't that long ago that Coyote Creek near San Jose was pretty much a dump. I'm curious what useful data you wanted to contribute to the conversation.

Of course it's a subjective definition. I've been to many 3rd world countries and yes usually they all share the similar problems. But the only 2 in really bad ecological shape that come to mind (where also basically no effort is done) are Nepal and Indonesia.

Scenic views. Yeah you can enjoy them while standing on a pile of trash. Just keep your eyes peeled to the mountain tops!

"That said, even our own "premier" cities have spots that are trashy. "

I'm not sure I'd call it a premier city then.

"I'm curious what useful data you wanted to contribute to the conversation."

I find it kinda lopsided to read an article that only mentions the good things without giving a proper/full picture. Some people might not really understand what it's like in a 3rd world country.

> I find it kinda lopsided to read an article that only mentions the good things without giving a proper/full picture.

Did we read the same article? Here's some points the author made that seem to contradict your claim.

1st paragraph: "boy oh boy, there have been major changes"

That implies change, ie: it was worse before.

2nd paragraph: "There was obviously major corruption going on behind the scenes, which prevented this improvement from happening for so long. "

"In bigger cities like Kathmandu and Pokhara, the hotels have always been a bit hit-and-miss"

"Visa regulations in Nepal are a little stricter than in Thailand"

Having re-read the article, I'm glad the author took the time to present this.

> Some people might not really understand what it's like in a 3rd world country.

I'm not sure your description of an entire country as a "total dump" is accurate or helpful to people like me who genuinely want to understand what it's like in a 3rd world country.

Luckily, there is a broad range of independently captured data on Streetview, even of the Annapurna trail, Kathmandu so folks can evaluate conditions for themselves without bias.

I feel like you shouldn't be downvoted (is that what lighter grey comments mean on HN?). Although this is a rather negative outlook, this actually gives a different perspective that's helpful to people who have no knowledge at all of the area (like myself). I would say I learned something, having this along with the linked article talking about the more positive aspects.

I'm from Nepal. I live in Kathmandu.

Your comment is spot on.

It's everything you said and much more:

https://vimeo.com/121045965

There was also a huge earthquake recently, mr. negativity.

what you don't see in that video is also the piles of rubbish along those trails. Sad!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572675/Mountain-rub...

Maybe this is my hypersensitivity, but whenever I read a little one-liner followed by: Sad!, there's one person I think of. And trust me, that doesn't help me accept what the author of the one-liner said.

> Maybe this is my hypersensitivity, but whenever I read a little one-liner followed by: Sad!, there's one person I think of.

I assume you mean Trump; I don't think that's hypersensitive, I've never heard anybody else punctuate their remarks with their emotion like that.

Given he linked to the Daily Mail, it probably goes doubly so.

> Rubbish is everywhere, I mean literally it's like living in the middle of a dump site.

I think naming places would be a better explanation to this rather than saying everywhere.

Yes, littering is a problem here in cities like Kathmandu but many villages are still untouched by this problem. Nepal comprises mostly of villages.

I found the small villages are equally dirty and littered considering the size of the populations. Also it seems that most tourists contribute to this problem by behaving like idiots in this regard as well.

Looks like you had a bad experience in Nepal. Sorry for that.

I kind of doubt they have anything on Bangkok when it comes to traffic. After all, a recent study showed Thailand has the world's worst traffic congestion. Nepal wasn't in the top 10. [1]

[1] http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1201869/thailand-has...

Thailand is a different country I guess. Nepal is a country of mountains and Thailand is definitely not. But, both are 3rd world countries.

According to http://brilliantmaps.com/first-second-third-worlds/ while Nepal is 3rd world, Thailand is not.

That map is nonsense. The first, second, and third world designations have always been political divisions. First world being western, second being communist, and third world being everything else. Even more inexplicable is that they note this fact in the text and then just disregard it.

I mean I sort of understand what they are trying to do and I know other people sometimes make this mistake but it just ends up being confusing.

Mexico and Thailand aren't second world countries unless you just arbitrarily decide to misrepresent what the phrase means, since the whole point of the damn distinction in the first place was to represent the global battle for supremacy between capitalist modern countries (first world) and communist planned economies (second world). The big issue in the cold war was which of those two worlds would win the battle for the third world countries.

So when a former third world country modernizes and becomes more market driven with a more western style economy but you mark it as a second world country, you've literally described the opposite of what actually happened.

so what do you think of http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world.htm ?

In the original comment, I'm not sure the usage of 3rd world was in relation to cold war/political division.

Thailand is upper middle income like Mexico and china. Nepal is low, like much of Africa, other poorer countries in South Asia. In comparison, India is lower middle income, so richer than Nepal and poorer than Thailand.

I admit that is surprising, since many of the best Indian restaurants in Denver, Colorado, are run ... by people from Nepal.

thanks for the perspective!

Thanks for the colonialist attitude!

Those countries won't get better if we don't help them.

This is the definition of "the colonialist attitude."

The "white man's burden" was the justification for all manner of interventionist, abusive (and self serving) policies.

Countries can definitely improve without "our" help - that's not to say we shouldn't offer our help, but we definitely shouldn't go around assuming inherent superiority.

There are many ways to help, apparently "the colonialist attitude." is the only one being understood around here.

Ever heard of things like volunteer work, Engineers Without Borders,....?

In general Nepal and other similar 3rd world countries won't get better until the people over there make it so.

The people will need to want to organize a goverment which has the integrity, capacity and resources to improve the conditions. Work on the education system, social and economic structure and provide basic infrastructure. However most often than not these countries are full of corruption, no matter how much money you'd pour into it it'll just go for the benefit of the few.

It all begins with the local people and tbh, I'm not holding my breath.

And finally a personal anecdote, it's funny how the people in these 3rd world countries fail to organize even the simplistic things such as bus terminals. And one just has to wonder, if they can't organize a bus terminal what chance do they have of ever organizing a properly functioning goverment that could organize their country?

> And one just has to wonder, if they can't organize a bus terminal what chance do they have of ever organizing a properly functioning goverment that could organize their country?

As a resident of New York City[0], I am not sure how to respond to this observation.

[0] http://www.wnyc.org/story/surviving-port-authority-bus-termn...

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have good intentions at heart but are somehow misled as to how societies work. I will try to remedy that.

Nepal by no means has "failed to organize even a bus terminal". For god's sake, the Nepalese people organized a pretty successful resistance against their Monarchy[0]. So please get your facts straight before making such sweeping generalizations about 3rd world countries. In general, every country has a very unique set of circumstances for being in a state of social/economic/political backwardness.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_democracy_movement_in_Nep...

Well talk again once you've actually been to the main bus terminal in Kathmandu.

I will but only after you've actually been to the ghettos of inner city Detroit, Houston and South Side Chicago :).

That's all very easy for someone like yourself living in an already functioning country to say. What have you done?

While I don't think that you're advocating the same type of "help" that a colonialist would, you must be able to see the irony in calling someone a colonialist while also saying the exact same thing that all colonialists said — that "we must help them". The implication, of course, is that they are unable to help themselves.

You believe that — through your own luck and with your own privilege — you are able, and therefore should be willing to help people who — through no fault of their own — require some help.

A colonialist would say that — due to their innate genetic superiority — they are able, and therefore should be willing to help people who — due to their own innate inferiority, primal culture, and lack of intelligence — require some help.

I can hardly have a colonist attitude given that I work for an Asian company, so excuse my lack of English skills for expressing help.

I don't think being Asian somehow makes you immune to having a colonial approach =)....lol. (And yes, I'm Asian too).

If anything, as an ethnic Han Chinese myself, I know we are all too aware of how to conquer and colonise other places. And trust me, Chinese have no shortage of a superiority complex, regarding the barbaric hordes outside of the Middle Kingdom grins.

This isn't exactly like being Jewish, and getting away with anti-Semitic remarks like Sacha Baron Cohen.

I am Portuguese, working across Europe as employee of an Asian company.

To be honest your second sentence could be considered a pretty colonialist attitude

Not when by helping one understands working together with the people on those counties and provide them the means that they need to fulfill their goals.

Fair enough, but the original comment sounded to me like just a (brutally) honest opinion of life in Nepal. I can imagine people finishing that blog post thinking "that sounds idyllic" and if it's not strictly true then the comment you replied to may be a pretty useful reality check

Are you talking about the white mans burden?

No idea what you are talking about.

"The imperialist interpretation of "The White Man's Burden" (1899) proposes that the white man has a moral obligation to rule the non-white peoples of the Earth, whilst encouraging their economic, cultural, and social progress through colonialism.

"In the later 20th century, in the context of decolonisation and the Developing World, the phrase "the white man's burden" was emblematic of the "well-intentioned" aspects of Western colonialism and "Eurocentrism". The poem's imperialist interpretation also includes the milder, philanthropic colonialism of the missionaries:

"The implication, of course, was that the Empire existed not for the benefit — economic or strategic or otherwise — of Britain, itself, but in order that primitive peoples, incapable of self-government, could, with British guidance, eventually become civilized (and Christianized)."

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden

Thanks for the explanation.

My employer for the last ten years has been an Asian company, so I hardly agree with that.

I agree.