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].
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.
Thanks. Always good to have a more complete and balanced picture.
I did in fact recently read about the infrastructure works in France (and elsewhere) during that era. (Great read so far: Liaquat Ahamed's 1873: The Rothschilds, the First Great Depression, and the Making of the Modern World)
As the sibling comment mentions, you're not getting anything production grade for less than $7 per million and that's on input and output.
Nebius is single digit TPS. 31 seconds to reply to "What's 1+1".
Hopefully Deepseek will make it out of their current situation because in a very ironic way, the thing the entire market lost its mind over is not actually usable at the pricing that drove the hype: https://openrouter.ai/deepseek/deepseek-r1
If you want reliable service you're going to pay more around $7~8 per million tokens. Sister commenters mention providers that are considered unstable https://openrouter.ai/deepseek/deepseek-r1
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)
ActiveX XMLHTTP might have been released in 99, but it didn’t see any sort of real wider usage until 2004, 2005. I’d suggest its usage was really kickstarted when jQuery 1.0 launched in 2006 and standardised the interface to a simple API.
Gmail was the first time I saw a website which could refresh the information without refreshing the page. I was a teen back then but I realized it was something momentous.
OK, but I think it was Google Maps that made the experience of not needing to refresh the page popular (while being shown more information from the server).
For a long time, you needed an invite to sign up for Gmail, so you couldn't easily share the cool experience of AJAX with others like you would with a Google Maps link.
> it was Google Maps that made the experience of not needing to refresh the page popular
IMO that's a reasonable impression of the times unless I'm forgetting something (and the additional observation about sharing--"virality" as it was called, before you know--was insightful).
At the time the previous "state of the art" was something like MapQuest which IIRC had a UI that essentially displayed a single tile and then required you to click on one of four directional arrow images to move the visible portion of the map, triggering a page load in the process (maybe a frame load?).
Yahoo! also "participated" in the mapping space at the time.
In the event anyone's interested in further ancient history around the topic, this page is actually (to my surprise) still online (with many broken links presumably): https://libgmail.sourceforge.net/googlemaps.html
(It's what we did for fun in the Times Before Social Media. :D )
It's 67th in the world and less dense than 11 French cities, though not a great comparison because most of those are small cities. But just because it's in the top 100 doesn't mean it's maxed out. It still has 5000/sqkm fewer people than Paris.
Nor does it mean this trade off for a measly 10,000 flats is worth it in such a large city.
Please, the densities seen at the top of that list are really inhumane, more like prison camps than cities.
Also, increasing density might be easy if you demolish 100 single family homes to build 10 five-stories buildings, but replacing Barcelona's 5-6 stories blocks with 10-stories ones isn't going to be economically viable. And if some brave developer tries this, then the resulting apartments won't be cheap.
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)
Yeah; they're probably thinking of New York City. If taken on its own, Manhattan is one of the densest cities in the world; the rest of NYC brings it down a lot.
Just to add some context, the term "Top 5" is not subjective, it's a reference to those five journals. Tenure and promotion decisions in top departments based their decisions on publications in those journals.[1]
This is the correct answer and would get the agreement of probably better than 95% of the profession.
The suggestion above that JEL is a top five is bizarre. The CS equivalent is saying that the book “learn python in 21 days” is a top outlet for CS research.
The authors of this paper should be deeply embarrassed about the way they handled that data, but I’m slightly relieved to see that this garbage was published in a tenth-rate journal no one has ever heard of. (Though to be clear there are definitely problems with what gets through in top journals too!)
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.
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/