othello

This is completely incorrect. Aviation contributes 2.5% of global emissions (but is terrible on a per capita basis, as only around 10% of the world's population travels on any given year). Global shipping accounts for 2.3% of global human-made emissions [1].

In transport emissions, passenger vehicles dominate by far (with around 12% of global GHG emissions), even more so in developed countries. Then freight by road with 7.5% of total emissions.

Maritime shipping is actually the least carbon intensive way to transport goods over long distances by at least two orders of magnitude [2].

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport

[2] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/transport/06_figure_8-6/

To be fair, that's more the Third Republic's verdict than what recent historians have concluded. For sure, Sedan was a catastrophe and the Mexican adventure was worse, but the two decades in between gave France the railway build-out, Haussmann's Paris, the creation of modern investment banks, and even universal male suffrage, which the Republic then kept ([1], [2] & [3]).

In this particular instance, everybody in this thread seems to be forgetting the region where the fires are currently raging used to be very unsanitary swamps before the pine forests were planted. These older wetlands were a major source of disease and misery for the local population. The reason why they only planted pines were because the soil there is poor & acidic. Nothing else grows really. Now of course, this needs to be rethought in the light of climate change, but it wasn't a stupid idea at the time.

[1] The unlikely triumph of Napoleon III, https://engelsbergideas.com/reviews/the-unlikely-triumph-of-...

[2] Napoleon III and the Second Empire, https://www.routledge.com/Napoleon-III-and-the-Second-Empire...

[3] The People's Emperor, https://www.faber.co.uk/product/9780571361304-the-peoples-em...

Would you have specific recommendations of such vendors?

Just a decade and a half as it turns out! (though things definitely felt dizzyingly fast back then - think Google was launched just 5 years after HTML)

- HTML first released in 1993

- AJAX in 1999

- Websocket first proposed in 2008

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(programming) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebSocket

Barcelona has a 16,000 people per square km density - that’s already one of the highest in Europe.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/barcelona-pop....

We are already the densest OECD city by quite a margin! (22,000 per sqkm in the inner 20 district, twice that of Manhanttan and 3 times that of Tokyo - and still 8,600 in the Petite Couronne, which includes 8 million people)

That's incorrect, the Top 5 in econ are (in no particular order):

- Econometrica

- American Economic Review

- Quarterly Journal of Economics

- Journal of Political Economy

- Review of Economic Studies

Here’s a clickable link:

https://aureliensaussay.github.io/nightmares/climate_nightma...

It did not - the population inhabiting the current French territory had represented 20% of Europe's population quite consistently since medieval times. E.g. France numbered 19.7 million inhabitants as early as 1457 [1]

The population explosion that's discussed in the article (the population dividend of the demographic transition) just never happened in France - which is the whole point of why its relative standing dropped so much over the past two centuries compared to other hitherto much smaller countries such as England and Germany.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France

Absolutely! Also “town” seems rather uncharitable as Marseille has been a city without interruption for the past 2600 years since it’s founding as Massalia by Greek colonists - making it almost as old as Rome. It’s home to 1.8 million today, and a beautiful place to visit!

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Marseille

To enjoy modern standards of living, medium to high density urban arrangements are much less resource intensive than suburban sprawl, which the relevant comparison point.

The figure you quote, aggregated at the global level, entirely results from a comparison of city lifestyle with pre-industrial countryside lifestyles in developing countries. By contrast, living in the countryside or in suburbia in rich nations is much more environmentally damaging than in dense urban areas, which is what gp was referring to.

The impact of a tax is measured as a share of your income - if a tax represents a growing share of your income as you grow richer, it’s called progressive, otherwise it’s regressive (ie falls harder on the poor).

This is the case for consumption taxes in general and carbon taxation in particular. This is not contradictory with the fact that the top income decile emits more per capita in absolute than the lowest one.

This is especially manifest for gasoline consumption: richer households consume significantly more of it, but it represents less than 2-3% of their income, while it can reach more than 10% for poorer households.

Indeed, this can and should be offset with a full redistribution of the tax proceeds - either flat or targeted at lower income households - to compensate the inherent regressivity of carbon taxation.

Source: my PhD was on the distributional consequences of carbon pricing.

This is actually due to the inclusion of suburbs and exurbs in the “urban” category for US, Canada & Australia.

Half of the US population lives in the suburbs (see above posters). What we would recognize as a real urban environment only accounts for less than a third of the US population (98M people).

One really underappreciated aspect of R is that it's a lisp at heart. This enables the user (and enterprising package writer) to build really clean abstractions for the task at hand.

The tidyverse suite of Hadley Wickham is a great example of this, notably with the pipe operator %>% (similar to |> in F#) which is not part of the base language and yet could be very easily implemented. Julia's macros probably enables the same type of implementation, but I don't see how one would achieve it as easily in Python for example. Non-standard evaluation is another example of R's lispiness in action [0].

Also, consider how easy it is to walk R's S-exp. Expressions in R can only be one of four things: an atomic value, a name, a call or a pairlist. Wickham's Advanced R has a great intro on this [1].

I believe Wickham's amazing work with tidyverse (which really changes the way you code in R) is just the beginning of a rediscovery of R's inner lisp power, a kind of "R: the good parts" moment.

[0] http://adv-r.had.co.nz/Computing-on-the-language.html

[1] http://adv-r.had.co.nz/Expressions.html

In terms of loss of civilians and military personnel though, it does not compare: the Soviet Union accounted for more than 40% of all WW2 deaths (both civilian and military) worldwide - including deaths on the Pacific front.

The Soviet Union lost a total of 26.6 million people, or 13.8% of their 1939 population. Germany suffered tremendously as well of course, with 5.7 million dead, or 8.2% of their 1939 population [0].

This is obviously not a contest, and I'm sure we can all agree that the suffering was tremendous on all sides. However, when it comes to the perception of war in Russia, the fact that the brunt of the Allied war effort in terms of casualties was borne out by the Soviet Union during WW2 (a fact often little known or recognized in Western countries) is especially relevant.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

I agree, but that measure compares Russia in 1917, before the Soviet Union, with Russia in 1991, which was 25% smaller.

The Soviet Union was indeed considerably larger than Russia had been since the 17th century.