That is actually a topic I hardly see discussed here. And one that would be interesting to see a factual discussion about. Seems to me that perceived conceptions about it are behind Brexit.
You are comparing the best the US has to offer with the standard for European employees.
Here in Germany, you have health insurance, no student debt, multi-month paid maternity/paternity leave, 30 days of vacation per annum, paid sick leave, multiple bank holidays.
Notice how I didn't specify a company or location?
Because this is the standard for every full-time employee in the whole country, irrespective of location or profession.
The German model has two draw-backs: Pay never reaches the levels in the US and it is relatively hard to land your fist job. Also, some gig economy jobs fall through the cracks.
For an honest comparison and a complete picture, you can't take a software engineer from SV and compare it to a software engineer from Berlin.
At least not just.
For a complete picture, you should also compare a software engineer from Boise to a software engineer from Düsseldorf. And a call center employee from Oklahoma with a call center employee from Mecklemburg-Vorpommern.
The ones who "made it" will always be better off in the US. But everybody else, not so much.
If you want to compare worst or average of the US, why not compare it to the worst or average of Europe - say, Romania or Spain or Moldova or Greece? Why compare it to one of the best places in Europe?
Or, to use your words - the Germans will always be better off in Europe. But everybody else, not so much.
The EU is probably not as homogenous as the US, still, in Bucharest, yearly salary is 20kEUR (92kRON) for your average Sw Eng (not to mention cost of living would be low).
Also in Germany you’re not going to get fired because your manager doesn’t like your face. And you’re unlikely to get incarcerated because a prosecutor doesn’t.
> You are comparing the best the US has to offer with the standard for European employees.
And you're moving goal posts by refocusing off of software developers and tech, an area where the EU and Europe badly lose to the US.
The median US software developer earns ~$110,000 this year before you get to any other compensation. That median employee (1.4m software developer jobs in the US) is not working in the bay area, NYC, or Seattle.
The US median software developer salary is over twice that of the EU. I haven't checked for an exact comparison but it's now probably close to twice that of a first tier EU economy like France, given how much higher incomes are in the US and how badly compensated software developers are in Western Europe. EU workers are also typically paying for their health insurance through high taxation.
That $110k employee is not paying for their health insurance via high taxation. The only argument there is that their corporate compensation could be even higher, maybe $125k-$130k per year, if the corporation didn't cover health insurance (shifting the burden to the employee).
The only work advantage an EU software developer has over the US, is the greater guaranteed time off from work. In exchange for that, they have far less economic upside potential and fewer jobs per capita available.
I've worked in a US company (in a German branch) and the work hours, late night meetings etc. they did in the US were insane to all of us. I can't say if this is typical or not, but from what I hear it is.
In Germany, people usually give their best effort... for 8 hours, then they go home and enjoy their free time (or family time, if they have one). Of course, sometimes emergencies happen and you stay longer, but this is seen as an exception. Worker protection is also very strong here, meaning that things like "on call duty without compensation" aren't even legal.
Also, if you're in the valley you might not be able to afford to live there, so you have to factor in commuting too. Commutes are generally much shorter in Europe and public transportation is also usually better.
Yes, it's true that you earn a lot more in the US, even factoring in health insurance, rent etc., and I agree that European (and in particular German) employers should be paying more (and salaries are already starting to rise significantly), but still, I wouldn't want to trade because in the end, money is not all that matters.
While 30 days vacation is kind-of standard, the statutory minimum is 20, and I've had job offers fresh out of university where employers offered me only 26 days.
I knew that I could easily get another job offering the "standard" 30, but I'm sure that quite a few graduates fall into that trap.
Most EU students don't even get into the labor market until their late 20's (because the lack of jobs, erasmus etc).
In the US, it is not uncommon to see very young engineers making some serious money in their early career, due to accomplishments during their teen years.
So in effect, if you adjusted for age (not seniority or title) the gap in pay bet would be worse against EU.
There are even rooftop containers for kayaks and specific cycle holders for the rear of the car so that you can go camping with a typical European station wagon without having to use a trailer.
I'm not trying to complain about the choices you made, but rather trying to emphasize the point of the article. Pickup trucks are more of a cultural phenomenon than a practical necessity. If the emission standards are raised, other solutions will appear without much/any loss in convenience.
I'd argue a pickup truck does everything described better than the three vehicles you posted. Most people only have one vehicle and a pickup is simply a great jack of all trades.
I 100% agree that pickups are a American cultural icon (just look at the ads, they drip nationalism) but it is hard to argue that they are not practical.
Pickup trucks indeed have their advantages over the vehicles I listed. However, I would disagree somewhat regarding where the advantages are.
I'd say that the vehicles I listed and pickup trucks manage fairly equally in the above transport categories (tools, furniture, kayak, bike). The way to go about it is just different.
But: Pickup trucks outclass all the vehicles I listed as soon as you leave the tarmac. Here in Germany, many people in rural areas who would own a pickup truck in the US also own a "family tractor" for working in the woods or in other off-road locations.
Then again: The vehicles I listed will always be faster on the Autobahn than a pickup truck. I regularly see people in station wagons go 160km/h and above for prolonged distances on the A3 at night.
In the end, I find it extremely fascinating how a different regulatory environment has bred different 'species' of utility vehicles on both sides of the Atlantic.
The differences are indeed fascinating. The first vehicle you listed would never be owned by a private individual unless they used it for a business. It seems like the inverse is true with non-commercial pickup trucks in Europe
I'd like to point out two things regarding the size of Frankfurt.
Frankfurt is no London and no Paris, this is clear. However, that's also related to the way in which Germany as a whole functions. The individual cities aren't all that big, but they are clustered in metropolitan areas.
If you live in the vicinity of Frankfurt, you can just drive to Heidelberg for a Saturday night out (about an hour). Or, if you're more interested in food, theater or classical music, you have a large selection from Mainz to Aschaffenburg, all of which is easily reachable from Frankfurt.
Equally, the pool of support staff you can draw from isn't recruited from the minuscule population of Frankfurt (700k), but from the whole metro region (5.5 million). I myself live at the outermost boundary of the metro region and know many people who commute to Frankfurt.
The second point is that the relatively small size of the city of Frankfurt is an asset in one critical regard: Frankfurt is first and foremost a banking city (and secondly an airport city). If banks want to exert some influence over policy there, they have all the leverage they could want. This is not the case in Paris.
Personally, I'd be surprised if there was anything other than a somewhat even split of relocations between Frankfurt and Paris. And I'm fairly certain that the TGV service between Frankfurt and Paris will also be extended beyond what exists today.
Frankfurt has very good train connections as well. Specifically to Cologne which is via the hi-speed tracks, but also to Amsterdam and Vienna.
One big advantage of Frankfurt is that Germans are much more open to speaking English than the French, and this is an advantage that should not be underestimated. If you don't speak German, but do speak English it's possible to live in Frankfurt. To live in Paris, you have to speak French.
Only Amsterdam (which has English as its official language next to Dutch) is better in that regard. In Amsterdam you don't even have to ask if someone speaks English (that's considered an insult, on the same level of asking someone whether they can read and write).
The language point you touch on cannot be stressed enough. I have first hand experience with this as I travel to Germany on a regular basis and find Germans much more accommodating language wise than the French.
I also have had first hand experience of staff at establishments in Paris simply refusing to speak English. All in all if I had to choose as a Londoner I would prefer to move to Frankfurt or Amsterdam over Paris any day of the week.
> If you don't speak German, but do speak English it's possible to live in Frankfurt. To live in Paris, you have to speak French.
I speak French, but not that well. First time I went to Paris ('94) it was indeed close to what you suggest, but my French-teacher was right about one thing: As long as you got the pronunciation right and tried people would fall over themselves to try to help you.
Last times I've been in Paris, on the other hand, people would impatiently interrupt me when I tried to practice my French, and switch to English. It was outright annoying, as it made it hard to improve.
The most inconvenienced I've ever been was in some little village in Provence a couple of decades ago, when a shopkeeper didn't understand my French. But he proceeded to stop random passers-by until he found one that was willing and able to translate.
> The individual cities aren't all that big, but they are clustered in metropolitan areas.
That's the same everywhere. London is a cluster. My suburb of London itself has about a dozen town centres.
> Frankfurt is first and foremost a banking city (and secondly an airport city)
That's great for employers, awful for employees.
> If you live in the vicinity of Frankfurt, you can just drive to Heidelberg for a Saturday night out (about an hour)
Driving for an hour is not attractive for going out whe working long hours. This is why you see bankers paying millions of pounds for small flats in London Docklands so they are close to both work and nightlife. People who are used to walking distance or a few minutes on the underground to get to work and the same to get to restaurants and nightclubs are not going to be impressed by an hour to get someone interesting.
> Equally, the pool of support staff you can draw from isn't recruited from the minuscule population of Frankfurt (700k), but from the whole metro region (5.5 million).
Nobody cares about the support staff. They're easy to hire and cheap. The banks cares about the traders they pay a million plus in base salary and similar levels in bonuses. If they are willing to move to Frankfurt, the banks will go there. If they say "no, I'll just go to bank Y instead - they have an office in Paris," the banks will go to Paris.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, the bank my ex works for maintains several offices because of individual traders that insist on living in specific places and who bring enough business to justify it.
> If banks want to exert some influence over policy there, they have all the leverage they could want. This is not the case in Paris.
Banks have plenty of leverage in London, which is much larger than both Paris and Frankfurt combined. If anything they will have more leverage in Paris because Frankfurt is real competition for Paris in a way neither Paris or Frankfurt has been for London.
I wonder why these elite traders don't want to come to Berlin, which has plenty of culture/nightlife/etc within short walking/subway distance of many central spots? Certainly more interesting than Frankfurt.
I'd say that the explanation is actually less contentious than it might seem.
He has mastered the art of going viral. Right now, even the people that hate him are promoting him by giving attention to the controversies he manufactures.
If it is, then shutting it down would cut off an enemy's economic resources and force them to choose between an angry population and attacking a fortified position against air superiority.
Yes, being without electricity does great harm to the civilian population, but less harm than a massacre-by-flood.
I am just guessing here, but I would expect that there are better ways to solve the issue with the gate that are easier, safer and even cheaper than dynamite.
The article says only one of two gates has problems, but they cannot open only one because of the asymmetry that would introduce. So, to solve the problem with dynamite, it would be necessary to make very good calculations to be sure you make exactly the hole you want, then actually do it with a very high precision (for an explosion).
I do not think opening that gate is as much a technical problem as a problem of initiative and responsibility.
Various forms of shaped charges and explosives could be used to open the sluice gates but that would leave them permanently opened.
The main fear here is that if the dam reaches its design head, the water will tunnel underneath and around the dam through the water soluble rocks. The dam can't exceed the design head because of the spillway that is visible to the south east of the dam.
So explosives could well be used to force open the sluice gates.
You (and at least one other) reacted as though I had claimed such an action would come with a guarantee nothing could go wrong. Which is, to put it bluntly, a rather stupid reaction given that:
1. I didn't make a claim. I asked a question.
2. According to the experts, the clock is currently ticking down on a million lives with no idea of how much time is left, so your implied suggestion of doing nothing (which is the implied suggestion when you summarily dismiss a line of thought while providing nothing in its place) is... well, how exactly would you describe the suggestion of just letting a million people die, had it come from someone else?
It just seems to me that using explosives on a structure where collapse is imminent in order to fix it sounds like the most dangerous idea one could possibly have.
First of all, according to what the experts are saying, the most dangerous idea one could possibly have is your idea of doing nothing - that guarantees the worst-case outcome.
Second, one would normally expect the force required to break the dam to be orders of magnitude larger than that required to open a sluice gate. Obviously this isn't a normal situation, but then, what are the figures? If a stick of dynamite isn't the appropriate tool, exactly what would it take to open the gates?
Third, if you could say 'we are going to try this at such and such a time, everyone be prepared' that would be far better than having it fail at an unknown time.
Fourth, now that I think of it, even deliberately blowing up the dam at a known time would be better than letting it fail at an unknown time.
Fifth, I'm sure there is some relevant idea or consideration I haven't thought of, that someone else could think of if they put their mind to doing so.
I would imagine siphoning might be a simple enough process and could be setup in multiple places along the dam to avoid the asymmetric draining issues mentioned further in the discussion here on hacker news.
"This siphon effect relies on atmospheric pressure to allow the pressure and pressure potential energy to drop as the water travels upward inside the sealed pipe. But eventually the pressure of the rising water reaches zero and no further reductions in pressure and pressure potential energy are possible. That failure of the siphon effect occurs when the water is about 30 feet (10 meters) above the higher container. You can't use a siphon to lift water higher than 30 feet because above that height, an empty region will develop at the top of the pipe and stop the siphon process."
"Here we report an experiment of a siphon operating at sea level at a height of 15 m, well above 10 m. Prior degassing of the water prevented cavitation. This experiment provides conclusive evidence that siphons operate through gravity and molecular cohesion."
"""Extrapolating these results from even the most conservative experimental measurements of the tension under which cavitation occurs it is possible that the cohesive strength of fully degassed water is able to support a continuous vertical column greater than several hundred meters. While the experiment performed here did not reach anywhere near the absolute limit predicted it does shed light on the stability of flowing water under tensile stress and the possibility of constructing apparatus of suitable dimensions to test such a limit. (...) In view of the many anomalies of bulk water, it would be interesting to explore the physical properties of water in the negative pressure regime of a siphon above 10 m."""
So, as long as we don't break the water column by bubbles (or other impurities in the water that will lead to formations of bubbles on their surface) we could empty the Mosul dam via a siphon.
That's a fascinating result! We only have to remove the rocks, the fish and put the dam under high-vacuum for outgassing for a few weeks ;-). If we don't do that, the old atmospheric pressure model holds, and the siphon will be limited to 10 metres, 30 ft.
I wasn't implying that the result from the paper is applicable to draining the dam, just that we should stop explaining the siphon effect in terms of atmospheric pressure now that we know it's not the case.
I seriously was amazed about the result, with a "block" of water being able to withstand tension. Also the working principle of a siphon, I think, never was about atmospheric pressure. It's only the maximum height limit where pressure comes into place.
As long as you are below the limit, you can still claim that the "two sides" of your siphon are held together by the pressure extorted on both sides by our atmosphere. And only as you exceed this limit you'll require the water to resist actively to be "pulled apart".
Unfortunately this interesting property is pretty irrelevant in real-life situations where water you'd like to siphon contains dirt, rocks, crockodiles... And these impurities will make your "water cable" break as soon as (or probably just a little later when...) you reach vacuum on the top, at 10m.
The issue is that top of the dam is (way) over 30 feet above the water level behind the dam, which prevents the suction from overcoming gravity. A siphon won't work with that much of a rise in the middle no matter what the difference is between the elevations of the ends of the tube.
Also what you're describing is literally how all siphons must work--you can't siphon to a higher elevation.
It would only work if the difference between the water level and the top of the wall is less than rouhgly 30ft (as per xkcd). The bottom line is, the siphon will not work if it has a vertical water column taller than 30ft (water weight per unit area becomes greater than opposing atmospheric pressure)
Putting aside the obvious detail that the dam would be empty already if we were trying to siphon water up a full 371 feet... Your correct, the entire thread this spawned was educational, and I learned something new today which was pretty damn interesting. Interesting enough I'm not bothered by the small karma loss my initial comment incurred.
Actually though, you could presumably cut holes in the dam as you go. So siphon off the top 30ft, then cut a hole at 341 feet and siphon through there.
That's called a spillway BTW and the problem with spillways is erosion and the energy of the water. So spillways have to be made of reinforced concrete or similarly strong materials when the local rock isn't hard enough and they have to be shaped to dissipate the energy.
The spillway of the Mosul dam is made of concrete the problem with it appears to be that it allows too high a water level for the dam in its current shape even when fully open.
I'm not sure it would be quite so simple. The article mentions the reason that they can't just open one gate is because the asymmetric draining would be harmful to the dam. It's possible that any sort of adhoc draining would adversely affect the dam. Not to mention quickly building a secure tunnel to handle the water pressure at that depth sounds like no mean feat.
Well, immediately getting back to grouting the base would be the first order of business. Second, fixing the jammed sluice gate. We need an analysis and timeline of the above and time is something it seems we don't have.
You don't even need humans for safety features to become a problem: Every day, I drive on a road that goes through the German woods. The road is barely wide enough for two average-sized cars to pass each other. If one car is wider than average, then one of the cars has to go off the road onto the dirt-and-stones shoulder.
The speed limit there is 60km/h. Nearly all the humans drive 80. If you drive 60 there, you will cause a queue to form behind you, because there is so much traffic on that 5km stretch of road.
The reason why I consider this to be such a good example is because there is no solution here for self-driving cars that will work in the real world.
If you just put self-driving cars as they are on that road, then you'll convert it into a giant traffic jam.
Of course, the only _logical_ way forward would be to widen that road so that it can actually sustain its traffic load, but that is not a real-world solution.
Because a) The local levels of government are too broke to fix all the roads like this even on a time scale of decades (!) and b) the road was built on the private property of local nobility in the 1920s (for weird historical reasons) and they have refused to give up the land for the road to be widened on at least one occasion in the past.
Now, this is Germany, possibly the most orderly car-nation on the planet. What about Italy? Or India? Or South Africa?
Self-driving vehicles will become ubiquitous on the Autobahns and in rectangular American cities. I would be very surprised if there were still many human truck drivers doing cross-Europe tours 30 years from now. But human-driven cars will not disappear in the lifetime of anybody reading this, simply because outside of a few well-planned environments, you have to bend the rules to maintain traffic flow.
Or, there might end up being fewer cars on the road because it's so easy to jump on a self-driving bus, then transfer at the station (with no waiting time) to a small pooled ride...
It is easy to lie to oneself that sleeping less is great if the activities done throughout the day are interesting.
However, if all that added time is used for mind-numbing tasks, the true destructive nature (physically and mentally) of sleep deprivation becomes apparent, as many parents of small children can attest.
It also used to be about retaining mobility once you get old.
When you can't run around outside for more than a few minutes and can't ride a bike any more, a car becomes you sole connection to the physical world.
Today, I'd say it is more of a bet: "How certain am I that the 100% self-driving car revolution (as in: needs no license) will reach the place I live in before I get old?"
_%E2%80%93_Frontansicht,_12._Mai_2017,_D%C3%BCsseldorf.jpg){kind=link}
The best way to get yelled at or down-voted on HN is having a basic understanding of how EU regulations and the EU legislative process work.