I said unique, old people need a lot of health care, generally way more than a kid. Most kids after birth just have routine checkups and not much else. Infants might get a bit more doctor visits because the parents don't know if they should worry or not because the infant can't speak, but generally even those amount to nothing.
Babies more universally need diapers than old folks, and do eat more than an older person, but health care is absolutely bigger for elderly.
Not really. The unique expense for a kid is education compared to the old, and elder care can easily eclipse that.
Even at constant population or even mildly declining, you would expect the young to outnumber the old by a bit. Given people die on the way to getting old and die whole being old more than the young die.
They may be even fewer than when the currently old folks when they were young but still be expected to outnumber the old
That's the neat part, they generally do pay for "their" electricity, but there isn't enough electricity for them to do that so power plants and infrastructure expansion must happen and they pretend that's for everyone, not just them, so they shouldn't pay for the capacity since technically they can't tell whose electricity is really whose.
It's a pretty broken model in this scenario.
I mean, it's somewhat possible, depending on context. However even if it helps someone with vision realize their goals 10 percent faster, it helps the person with zero vision pump out slop 100x faster than someone with good content to make.
Where's the roadkill?
A very quick turn let's you see the other half. Bonus, you can look at it from the perspective of a pole and get a much better view of the parts of earth that map projections just utterly mangle. Particularly helpful for understanding arctic geopolitics.
The distortion only applies if you take the screen flatness literally, and no one is going to accuse a 3d game of being hopelessly distorted by virtue of being on a flat screen.
Directions work fine, at that scale you can't even see the difference between a globe and a flat map. It's just zooming it out.
You have to zoom out to see about 500 miles on the screen before the curvature would even be very noticable, and at that point you aren't caring about the navigation in detail any more.
The one travel related thing is getting a better immediate sense for why a plane or boat runs a particular course which doesn't make sense on a typical map.
Well, the benefit is this very discussion here, that 2D projections necessarily have distortion on zoom out..
Note that the 2D map is almost certainly already rendered into a 3D context, it's just how modern graphics are done. Rendering textures to a curved modeled surface for isn't significantly different than rendering them to a perfectly flat modeled surface.
Even better than Bing maps, if you go to Google maps, click 'layers', then click 'more' and check 'globe view', then you have a google maps that on zoom out just happens to render to sphere instead of 2D. Not the least bit more resource intensive, apples to apples with the same textures that it would have used to build the 2D map but just projected onto a sphere instead.
Eh, a 3D sphere with mapping is quite workable. Bing maps can click over an overly detailed globe and the 'sphereness' of it only starts to matter when you zoom out. It's only a bit of a strain because of the texturing, and it's not much of a strain at that.
It would not be crazy to have a more accurate interactive behavior instead of assuming that zooming out enough to see continents should still be flattened out.
Another perspective.
Once upon a time, it was pretty normal to watch something and not be able to pause or rewind. It was perfectly expected that you might not get every single word and you didn't really think twice about it, just like you don't think about how you miss some words in real life.
But now, we can pause, we can rewind. We can get exactly what was said and we get preoccupied with making sure we understand every single word. So captioning becomes even more critical.
So you just said about 20 years of life is only twice that of the last three years of life for your starting figure. Add in college and it's still not that egregiously more.
You feel the need to add public school costs, but not add in medicare, social security, and other expenses exclusive to old age.