|
computer parts posted:
And it divides Sichuan in half it looks like, Chengdu on the west side. I bet Sichuan is a lot of that 6%.
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 09:03 |
|
|
# ? May 26, 2024 17:06 |
|
It's interesting to compare maps like those with maps of average rainfall It doesn't work so well for the USA, but it's almost spot on for China.
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 09:24 |
|
Now that I'm looking at it more that part of Sichuan is almost all mountains. There's a few large cities scattered around that yellow region but it's mostly desert and mountain.
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 09:39 |
|
Thanks to the magic of computer technology, we can tell that most population in the west is in Gansu and Inner Mongolia.
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 10:56 |
|
Ron Jeremy posted:
Really illustrates what a pretty great choice for capital location Washington was. The true center was closer to Baltimore, but that wouldn't have flown with the south.
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 19:19 |
|
Golbez posted:Really illustrates what a pretty great choice for capital location Washington was. The true center was closer to Baltimore, but that wouldn't have flown with the south. I dunno, placing the capital right at the front lines of the eventual civil war was probably a misstep, gently caress the South.
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 19:22 |
|
Kassad posted:It doesn't work so well for the USA, but it's almost spot on for China. Actually, it really, really does work for the USA. http://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/USA-population-density-per-square-mile.jpg The line between the plains/low density center, and the higher density east, runs in a line from Brownsville to Dallas to Wichita to Omaha to Minneapolis. Hey, check out this map! It even includes the curve at the north from Omaha to Minneapolis! The only real anomaly is the southwest, Southern California and Arizona on the dry side, and northern Idaho and northern Maine on the wet side. But otherwise, that rainfall map matches the broad strokes of the population distribution pretty closely.
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 19:23 |
|
Ron Jeremy posted:
I find it most interesting how the drift really slows down for about 1910-1940, which one presumes is entirely due to the World Wars and the Depression.
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 19:47 |
|
The twentieth century is also when it really starts bending south. Not knowing much about population trends, is there any particular cause to that? Did Mexican immigration start ramping up then?
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 19:54 |
|
Lord Hydronium posted:The twentieth century is also when it really starts bending south. Not knowing much about population trends, is there any particular cause to that? Did Mexican immigration start ramping up then? Air conditioning making Florida etc liveable.
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 19:56 |
|
fishmech posted:I find it most interesting how the drift really slows down for about 1910-1940, which one presumes is entirely due to the World Wars and the Depression. Yet California more than quadrupled its population between 1910 and 1950, surpassing handily national growth. I guess people at the time didn't move into non-coastal states, so the growth dynamics of the two seaboard balanced each other out?
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 19:58 |
|
Lord Hydronium posted:The twentieth century is also when it really starts bending south. Not knowing much about population trends, is there any particular cause to that? Did Mexican immigration start ramping up then? Air conditioning and the post-war revival of the south. Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Charlotte, Phoenix - these cities were very small or non-existent before 1900, some not reaching an appreciable size until decades later. (Phoenix didn't cross 100,000 until 1950; now it's the 6th largest city in the country) Put another way: In the 1860 census, the only city in the south that ranked in the top 10 was New Orleans, with 168,000 people. No other city in the south would match that population until 1920. Meanwhile, in 1860, New York had 3.9 million, Baltimore 212k, and Philadelphia 565k. It wasn't Mexican immigration at all that caused the initial shift, it was all the people from mainly the northeast migrating south and west. New York was the largest state in 1960, and second largest in 1990; now its 4th, behind California, Texas, and Florida.
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 20:07 |
|
fishmech posted:I find it most interesting how the drift really slows down for about 1910-1940, which one presumes is entirely due to the World Wars and the Depression. i dont read that as a pause because of the depression so much as the depression marking an intermission between periods of growth, the mid 1800's being a time of midwestern settlement, the turn of the century focusing more on east coast urbanization, and then the immediate post-ww2 boom in california's population Lord Hydronium posted:The twentieth century is also when it really starts bending south. Not knowing much about population trends, is there any particular cause to that? Did Mexican immigration start ramping up then? southern california population growth of the greater los angeles region 1900 250,187 — 1910 648,316 159.1% 1920 1,150,252 77.4% 1930 2,597,066 125.8% 1940 3,252,720 25.2% 1950 4,934,246 51.7% 1960 7,751,616 57.1% 1970 9,972,037 28.6% 1980 11,497,486 15.3% 1990 14,531,529 26.4% 2000 16,373,645 12.7% 2010 17,877,006 9.2% by 1960 the LA metro had passed the Chicago metro in total pop
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 20:09 |
|
Thanks for the info. I had no idea that AC (among the other factors) had a major effect on growth like that, though it makes sense.
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 20:28 |
|
would the steinrokkan posted:Yet California more than quadrupled its population between 1910 and 1950, surpassing handily national growth. I guess people at the time didn't move into non-coastal states, so the growth dynamics of the two seaboard balanced each other out? Would the pull of Chicago to the north affect the pace of the movement?
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 21:00 |
|
fishmech posted:I find it most interesting how the drift really slows down for about 1910-1940, which one presumes is entirely due to the World Wars and the Depression. I thought you had a lot of people moving West during the Great Depression. Don't tell me I read the Grapes of Wrath for nothing
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 21:08 |
|
Hooray for air conditioning for making blatantly unlivable places livable. This cannot backfire
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 21:09 |
|
Ras Het posted:Hooray for air conditioning for making blatantly unlivable places livable. This cannot backfire Meh. What's the difference between that and people in frozen-rear end parts of the Earth depending on winter heating?
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 21:14 |
|
my dad posted:Meh. What's the difference between that and people in frozen-rear end parts of the Earth depending on winter heating? The concept of indoor heating has been around longer and is established as essential to human life in most areas so smug liberals can't whip themselves up into moral outrage over its wastefulness
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 21:17 |
|
Ras Het posted:Hooray for air conditioning for making blatantly unlivable places livable. This cannot backfire The American Joe Miller’s Jest Book posted:“The boundaries of our country, sir? Why sir, on the north we are bounded by the Aurora Borealis, on the east we are bounded by the rising sun, on the south we are bounded by the procession of the Equinoxes, and on the west by the Day of Judgement.”
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 21:17 |
|
Isn't there a school of history that views the settling of Southern California as one big scam to transfer money from midwesterners to land developers?
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 21:19 |
|
Phlegmish posted:I thought you had a lot of people moving West during the Great Depression. Don't tell me I read the Grapes of Wrath for nothing While a ton of people moved west because of that, they weren't a very large number overall. There were also a ton of people in that situation who moved east instead, or moved from outlying rural areas in general into already existing cities, which were mostly in the East.
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 21:21 |
|
my dad posted:Meh. What's the difference between that and people in frozen-rear end parts of the Earth depending on winter heating? People shouldn't live in Finland either. All of the humans in the world should live in a narrow zone expending from Portugal to Japan and the rest of the planet should be abandoned to wildlife & super efficient bean production Dr.Zeppelin posted:The concept of indoor heating has been around longer and is established as essential to human life in most areas so smug liberals can't whip themselves up into moral outrage over its wastefulness lmao liberals
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 21:25 |
|
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 21:26 |
|
Note: Denmark died on the way back to its home planet
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 21:32 |
|
If the state of technology ever regresses to the point where air conditioning isn't a given anymore, every urban area is going to be in trouble no matter where it's located. But the ones in literal desert most of all, true.
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 21:33 |
|
my dad posted:Meh. What's the difference between that and people in frozen-rear end parts of the Earth depending on winter heating? Huge differences in energy efficiency between the two processes?
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 21:36 |
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Isn't there a school of history that views the settling of Southern California as one big scam to transfer money from midwesterners to land developers? alnilam posted:Huge differences in energy efficiency between the two processes?
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 21:45 |
|
Ras Het posted:Hooray for air conditioning for making blatantly unlivable places livable. This cannot backfire https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PYt0SDnrBE
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 21:50 |
|
Czechoslovakia reunited and it feels so good.
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 21:55 |
|
Phlegmish posted:I thought you had a lot of people moving West during the Great Depression. Don't tell me I read the Grapes of Wrath for nothing those people were already living west of the population center
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 22:19 |
|
fishmech posted:I find it most interesting how the drift really slows down for about 1910-1940, which one presumes is entirely due to the World Wars and the Depression. My guess that it has more to due with the closing of the frontier
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 22:26 |
|
Maxwells Demon posted:Czechoslovakia reunited and it feels so good. Question for the Czechs and Slovaks here: do people ever bring up reunification or is it more like "nah, we're good this way"?
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 22:30 |
|
the jizz taxi posted:Question for the Czechs and Slovaks here: do people ever bring up reunification or is it more like "nah, we're good this way"? What do you mean? Is it a point of historical antagonism? No. Does it really affect people now that both countries are part of Schengen? No. In many ways Czechoslovakia still exists. Slovaks are by far the greatest "minority" the Czech republic, and Czechs choose Slovakia as their number one holiday destination. OTOH i think lots of Czechs still patronizingly think about Slovakia as our little brother, and Slovaks are kinda annoyed about that. E: oh, you talked about reunification, I read it as "bring up separation"... no, reunification isn't brought up by anybody serious, and it wouldn't make sense in the EU. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Aug 15, 2016 |
# ? Aug 15, 2016 22:48 |
|
I think the question is more, do people regret it or are they content with the outcome? Always seemed to me that it was a pragmatic decision and that it could have gone either way, and I wouldn't be surprised if people were still fairly indifferent to it.
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 22:54 |
|
Phlegmish posted:I think the question is more, do people regret it or are they content with the outcome? it was largely a technocratic decision. in 1968 the post-prague spring communists drafted a constitution that gave a truly extreme measure of influence to federal assemblies of the slovak and czech national assemblies, which were able to overturn any decision made by the federal assembly. however, because there was a single party state, this federal power existed only on paper, and things worked out just fine. in 1989, things changed, and because the country switched to pluralism, the constitution suddenly started to matter. because of the fact that both nations effectively held a veto power over any legislation, the country was nearly impossible to govern - it culminated with a presidential crisis when president Havel nearly failed to get a re-election due to constitutional constraints. And because neither nation was willing to sacrifice its constitutional powers in order to achieve national unity, the eventual solution to the crisis was to divide the republic and create two countries governed by traditional European parliamentarism. Once the deed was done, people were actually kinda sad, apparently, including politicians who pushed the dissolution through, like Slovakia's Mečiar. There was a lot of hugging and sobbing in the Parliament on that day. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Aug 15, 2016 |
# ? Aug 15, 2016 23:03 |
|
Had no idea that northern Scandinavia was part of Siberian culture: And another map about culture: Both from this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_area
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 23:11 |
|
Kamrat posted:Had no idea that northern Scandinavia was part of Siberian culture: When I hear the word "culture," I reach for my gradient tool.
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 23:38 |
|
Kamrat posted:Had no idea that northern Scandinavia was part of Siberian culture: The Netherlands appears to have a large rash around Rotterdam, they should see a doctor about that. Also this may be the most unexpected map to not see the Oder-Neisse Line.
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 23:39 |
|
|
# ? May 26, 2024 17:06 |
|
Golbez posted:The Netherlands appears to have a large rash around Rotterdam, they should see a doctor about that. It's Islam
|
# ? Aug 15, 2016 23:47 |