News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Roman Empire per capita GDP shows the Romans were poorer ... by josteink on Thursday October 12, 2017 @03:05AM (#15456185)
> The 1000sqft apartments we have today

For people in the SI-world (most of the world) confused by this imperial-speak, this roughly equates to 93 square meters.

Re:Roman Empire per capita GDP shows the Romans were poorer ... by simias on Thursday October 12, 2017 @07:53AM (#15457300)
A 93m^2 flat in Paris today would cost you around 2500-3000 euros per month in rent, or around twice the minimum wage. It's probably not the best example for the democratization of large dwellings...
Re:Roman Empire per capita GDP shows the Romans were poorer ... by IlPeach on Friday October 13, 2017 @03:32AM (#15463819)
Indeed... In London flats are averaging 30-50 sqmt, depending on area. Shared flats are a totally different thing and don't know if that would have been a thing in the past (maybe?)
Re:Roman Empire per capita GDP shows the Romans were poorer ... by vpalanc1 on Friday October 13, 2017 @03:51PM (#15468779)
> are averaging 30-50 sqmt

That's still 1.6-5.3 times more than they used to be, according to the original claim. Seems less dramatic than 5-10x but for an apartment that already feels tiny, it's a lot.

Re:Roman Empire per capita GDP shows the Romans were poorer ... by semi-extrinsic on Thursday October 12, 2017 @05:50AM (#15456802)
This example clearly illustrates a superior point of basically all Freedom Units: you get more of them. More is more better.
Re:Roman Empire per capita GDP shows the Romans were poorer ... by ojm on Thursday October 12, 2017 @06:14AM (#15456887)
You get less inches than cm. Less miles than km.

Not so free after all!

Re:Roman Empire per capita GDP shows the Romans were poorer ... by duncan_bayne on Thursday October 12, 2017 @07:44AM (#15457257)
I was going to reply "fewer inches!" but then I realised that inches are (at least in principle) not discrete; half an inch is a perfectly reasonable measurement.

Anyone here know which of "less inches" or "fewer inches" is grammatically correct?

Re:Roman Empire per capita GDP shows the Romans were poorer ... by skj on Thursday October 12, 2017 @08:18AM (#15457408)
"fewer" is for things you can count.

Less length, but fewer inches.

Re:Roman Empire per capita GDP shows the Romans were poorer ... by dom0 on Thursday October 12, 2017 @06:37AM (#15456974)
> More is more better ... that's just simple science!
Re:Roman Empire per capita GDP shows the Romans were poorer ... by norikki on Thursday October 12, 2017 @09:45AM (#15457859)
In the spirit of standardization, I think all systems of speaking besides American English should be made illegal in all countries. That way, no one will have to pay translators to unnecessarily switch back and forth between equivalent languages, or have to put up with any of those stupid British accents.

You can't deny the economic advantages of this. Who cares about losing cultural heritage? That's just for obstructionists like those filthy Americans. /s