the golf stat is actually way worse than this... because you aren't accounting for active users. how many people
actually benefit from all that water.
a golf course... at BEST has two or three foursomes on each hole on average at a time. so 36-48 players concurrently. accounting for less than perfect utilization it rounds to a rough throughput of about 1000 people per day per course. winter Exists and so you probably get like 20-50k people per year.
or maybe an easier term would be the estimated 160m people who played golf at least once last year.
which means that not only are we using that much water for so few people (.002% of the population) we are also reserving all of that space for so few people. for courses out in the middle of nowhere that doesn't matter but for example are thousands of acres of courses inside and near cities. one in LA reported 117k visits one year and that required dawn to dusk 365 play only possible in a climate like LA.
A typical course is ~150 acres so we could fit 50 soccer fields into that same space and service 3.2 million players. Ill spare the envelope math but its pretty hard to come up
with any other use for that space/water that could serve less people.
ok one more example that doesn't need water either. just up the street from the high volume golf course is runyon canyon. similar size 150 acres, serves 1.5m visits a year.
Basically golf is a major waste of resources for very little benefit in basically every way possible, and should be zoned out of existence.
Yes. And right after we kill golf lets pave over Central Park. And we can tear down sports arenas and concert venues after that. It's a huge waste when you think about how few people actually go there and what benefit they actually have. Sports overall are a waste of time. Everyone should just walk in the woods instead. Except soccer. You're right that we need thousands more soccer fields. Its way more efficient than any other kind of exercise. And there is so much demand for soccer in the US, you can't even find an empty field. In contrast to golf courses which are mostly empty like you noticed.
you aren't countering my core point that golf courses is the possibly the worst use of space and basically anything else would serve the same or better utility for way more people.
heck keep it golf but switch to driving ranges and its still like 10x more capacity for users than golf courses.
counter arguments that point out other things that are still 10x better uses of space than golf are not very compelling. a sports arena that serves 2.5m people/year is a terrible argument against a golf course that maxes out at 117k. (using sofi in LA numbers as its a similiar footprint as well 150acres)
im also not saying abolish golf, just only play it in places where the space/water use dont matter. like rural scotland. don't put golf courses in/near cities where we should use our space better.
> you aren't countering my core point that golf courses is the possibly the worst use of space and basically anything else would serve the same or better utility for way more people
My counter point was that everything we do doesn't have to be motivated by efficiency gains. Sports, golf especially, isn't trying to cram the most people possible into a small space.
By your own logic, we should replace soccer fields with kicking a ball into a net.
We need more green spaces, we need people to be active. Golf is a fairly quite sport, animals do foster around the greenery with golf courses. I would much rather a golf course than hot concrete everywhere.
Golf courses are not green spaces, come on now. They are most often limited in their access and devoid of greenery native to the area or that supports pollinators. Grass does not equal green space, and certainly not the flavor of green that is present in golf courses. The alternative to a golf course is not hot concrete either, that's a false dichotomy.
I'm not hating on golf. My grandfather would be appalled! In crowded urban areas they don't work so well anymore. And I'm also not against using our resources for human pleasure!
its because "green spaces" and "spaces with greens" are not the same. just imagine a 150 acre generic park or forest instead of an over fertilized over watered field for a single game played by only .002 percent of people.
golf is generally a huge waste of space for the amount of value we get from it per person and should have no place anywhere near a population center where we actually need more green space.
Unfortunately this is true. Around a year, or two years ago the WaPo (back before it was a total shill, yes it was still bad but... you know) had an article about how all the rhetoric from the far right in the US was almost, word for word, what was said a little more than 100 years ago. It was downright scary. Some part of the US has _always_ been that way. Maybe someone can find the article.
Everytime I see a trailer for an american film I feel like it's the same crap just re-hashed with different actors and the same plots over and over again. Give me something original. Something from Japan, Turkey, India, someone with a new idea.
The Koreans? Yup, they push the boundaries of story telling. For example the School Nurse Files, that was either one of the best or the worse series I've ever seen. I'm still trying to figure it out. No way a Hollywood studio would take a risk like TSNF.
It's funny that you mention Japan, because I live here and I swear 90% of Japanese movies/dramas/animes are just rehashes of the same ideas over and over again. I guess only the good stuff gets exported.
Korea too, and any other country. There are some great movies that push the boundaries of storytelling but those are just as rare as great American movies.
wow, ok. I definitely need this! This is my life now with French, Russian, German and whatever language of the moment I am messing around with.
However, it stills looks like it's tied to localhost? I get a web socket error (to localhost:8081) and when I type the name of the title into the search title. Nothing happens and the button doesn't look like I can click it (no highlighting)
Thanks for trying it! The localhost:8081 websocket isn't from Zenòdot, that's likely a browser extension (React DevTools, a proxy tool, or similar). Could you try in an incognito/private window with extensions disabled?
The search button activates once you've selected at least one language from the selector below the search bar. If you haven't picked any languages yet, it stays inactive... that might be what you're seeing.
Let me know if that helps!
ahh right, wrong error. This is the one I get:
Uncaught Error: Minified React error #418; visit https://react.dev/errors/418?args[]=HTML&args[]= for the full message or use the non-minified dev environment for full errors and additional helpful warnings.
That's a React hydration mismatch. I'm aware of it but hadn't seen it block functionality before. Thanks for flagging that it does for you.
Can I ask: when you load the page, do you see the language selector (a dropdown/search where you pick languages like English, French, etc.)? The search button only activates after selecting at least one language — if the hydration error is breaking the selector, that would explain why the button seems unclickable.
I'm looking into it right now. What Chrome version are you on?
Yeah, I've tried switching the languages, not ALL the text on the page changes from the default language and I've tried not changing the lang. Same thing.
Thanks for the details — that's very helpful. Chrome 145 on Mac, got it. The fact that text doesn't fully change when switching languages confirms the hydration error is breaking React's event handling.
I'm actively debugging this right now. I'll reply here when I have a fix deployed. shouldn't be long. Really appreciate your patience.
Update: The hydration bug has been fixed and deployed. The search should now work correctly. Thanks for the report, it helped us catch a real issue. Would love to hear if it works for you now!
Yeah, really dumb move on the part of Chase bank. They'd previously marketed their accounts as being geared towards international travelers, but now their cards can't be used in much of the world.
Well, “just” as in “recently forced everyone to replace their cards” also works. My CapitalOne mastercard was deactivated January 14, even though it was still valid through 2030.
My wife found out her new card was Discover debit card right before her trip to France. Her bank sent her a new card unrequested. In an abundance of caution she activated the new card which automatically cancelled her debit Mastercard. Then when she landed in CDG found the new card didn't work anywhere.
This is what these peeps advocating for an "EU-based payment system" don't get, as they typically don't travel worldwide. VISA + Master just work. Have a debit plus credit for one each. (And no, Google / Apple pay won't do it, everyone who calls themselves a "hacker" should know that you too often can't even pay for transport using a rooted phone).
We do actually. The German Girocards were, until Maestro ceased to exist, often co-issued as Maestro + Girocard, and global acceptance was pretty good under the Mastercard network.
There are examples of other co-branded national payment systems out there (troy + Discover comes to mind).
If a European payment system (with cards, at a store) is to exist, then visa/mc will still want a piece of the pie by at least playing along to remain as a co-brand and taking their cuts from international payments.
Aside from what the other commenter said about the hybrid systems, you proudly state that you have 4 cards at minimum, but having a system that would work continent-wide for ~98% of all money you spend would not bootstrap if someone needed to be bothered with having a separate travel card, which would rest in the drawer or as second Apple/Google/Garmin Pay choice most of the time?
Most adults I know have 2+ cards already, it's just that they were issued by Master Card or Visa. American Express and Discover still exist, despite definitely not having worldwide coverage.
The idea is for the US to not be able to shutdown CC transactions at points of sale in Europe on a whim. All cards in europe are dual-issued under Visa or Mastercard, and under a national card payment processor. In France, that's CB (Carte Bancaire). When you pay in europe, it uses the European network. Outside, it uses Visa/Mastercard.
So sorry, we do definitely get what this entails :)
fwiw: Discover technically goes through amex network in EU, and amex acceptance varies from pretty good (e.g. germany) to pretty awful. Completely incomparable to visa and mc acceptance ofc.
I thought the same, when my US bank (capital one) decided to change my debit card to their newly acquired Discover network. Sure enough, CIC and La Poste accept it for cash withdrawals, which preserves the advantage of great exchange rate, and no currency exchange fees (unlike wise, for example). Credit cards seem to stay on Mastercard (e.g. capital one) and visa (e.g. Chase), so still some life left with those, also. Wish the European solution will eventually have a rewards/points system, to bring it up to par with the US cards.
I meant that as more of a long term solution. Even if your domestic bank supports overseas payments, they most likely screw you on the fx rates, so just get a specialised card like Wise or Revolut.
It's free, their tech is great and their fx rates are more than fair.
Look I already told you, I deal with the @#$% customers so the engineers don't have to. I have people skills! I am good at dealing with people, can't you understand that? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!
reply