Southeast Asia is right there. If you're craving some culture shock just boat north.
It's true. I can be in japan in under half a day, China in 7-9 hours, and Indonesia or Bali? Practically the blink of an eye. The closest part of the US is only 14 hours away, and the UAE is only about 10 hours. We seem far away, but we're only far away from a small few places in the world, we're surprisingly close to a lot of it.
If I owned and could drive a boat, Australia would be great. I just want to keep myself able to go on impulse trips. It's why I'd like Europe: its very compact, and one can go very far in a short distance.
If I owned and could drive a boat, Australia would be great. I just want to keep myself able to go on impulse trips. It's why I'd like Europe: its very compact, and one can go very far in a short distance.
My father does just that. I stole a boat* on my last birthday and went cruising around, too.
If NYC broke off and formed something in between the two - A US backed independent city state, an independent hub of trading, industry and finance but with close ties to it's parent nation but with the freedom of being semi-independent, that'd work out pretty well. As long as you prepared for it a little beforehand, I guess.
I'm sure Wall Street would be all for it if it helped in regulation avoidance.
Is that like making the Kessel run in twelve parsecs?
I always thought that the constant in the Kessel run was time instead of space, which is why Han said he did it in twelve parsecs.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that Europe is a lot of cultural variation in not much space. Living in Austria, one is a short drive away from Hungary and Poland. An hour more into the Eastern Block things get even more different. Or, go south, and go to the Balklans. Turkish and Ottomon rule shaped their culture to be drastically different from the forces of Western Europe. Obviously none of this is the culture shock Walker was talking about, but it's still significant.
Is that like making the Kessel run in twelve parsecs?
I always thought that the constant in the Kessel run was time instead of space, which is why Han said he did it in twelve parsecs.
The Internets tells me that the Kessel Run is a standard smuggling route, which Han was able to shorten by flying really close to black holes with his awesome space ship.
I bet NYC could survive as some kind of Hong Kong or Singapore type enclave.
I bet NYC could survive as some kind of Hong Kong or Singapore type enclave.
Hmmm...
Anytime something like this happens with Luke, I assume he's posting from a cruise ship/Africa/the international space station and the internet is spotty. He has free reign to double post, even if it is 24 hours apart.
There is no country for me because I'm an old man now.
That's actually pretty funny.
This might be better addressed in a new thread, but Scott's usual bluster about New York, and my current freedom to live wherever I want makes me interested in NYC.
It's gonna take about five years for me to get my DNP degree at U.K. Then, I can practice as a psychiatric nurse practitioner. There might be some adjustments along the way, such as I might go to a Nurse Anesthetist school if I can get accepted.
So after this degree, I get to live anywhere I want. Which would be better? Chicago is a good health care area. Baltimore is as well, and I know Baltimore very well - I would have no trouble at all figuring out a good place to live and work there.
Boston has some appeal as well, but NYC is just there, waiting. I've always wanted to live there, and, in a way, I even feel like I have to some extent, through the pages of Marvel Comics.
However, there are several little things that I kinda hope are myths, such as the ridiculous rents, the small apartments, and so forth. Could a person avoid smallness in size and hugeness in rent if they were willing to live in some less fashionable burough, like Queens or Staten island?
How about living in New York State, or even Philadelphia? That way, a person could get to NYC very easily but not have to actually deal with the problems of living there.
And, with all due respect to Scott, when he says that NYC is relatively free of disasters, did the hurricanes somehow not register with him? Is NYC going to become more and more disaster-prone due to climate change? Maybe Chicago would be better after all.
There are two ways to avoid largeness of rent or smallness of living space.
One is to live in a place that is nasty. Lots of rat and roach infested places or pre-war buildings are much less expensive and in not awful locations.
The other way is to live far away. Living far away is what we did in Beacon for a few years, so I have some experience in that department. It sucks. If you don't live on a subway line, then you have to use a car, bus, or commuter rail to get to the city. You'll be in the city every day working, but you won't really be able to do anything here. You will lose at least two hours a day, every day, to commuting. If something cool is happening in the city at night, you can't attend because the trains/buses don't run all night. You have to leave the city by midnight, and even then you will get home after 2am.
Think about this. I was in the 5 Boro Bike Tour. There were people that flew all the way around the world to participate. I woke up, biked to the start. The middle of the race passed my house, so I stopped to take a short rest. At the end, I just biked home well before dinner time. I was able to shower and do some laundry.
When there's a weird movie, it's guaranteed to be playing near you. Miyazaki movies were playing at IFC all this past week. I recently went to the MoMA after work one day and saw THE Starry Night. And I just saw it again the other day, and the Scream is there now too. Just hanging there. I could go and see it again if I wanted, and it would only take a few minutes out of my day. What price can you put on that? The price of my gigantic rent. That is the price.
As much as I give Scott shit for talking it up all the time, yeah, New York is pretty great. Scott glosses over some of the shittier aspects, but we're still talking New York, not Mogadishu, it's still pretty cool despite.
. . . but nearly every large city has great cultural opportunities. Why would the cultural opportunities in NYC be any better than in Chicago?
That raises the specter of Philadelphia again. I kinda think that Philly would have lots of nice cultural opportunities, and a person could always get to NYC easily. Philly might be a good compromise.
I'm a little interested in the outer boroughs. Can a person live in Queens and get to Manhattan easily? How about Staten Island?
I'm familiar with that two-hour commute. That was my commuting time when I lived in Baltimore and worked in DC.
There's a nice little area of Pennsylvania that I find a little interesting. It's the somewhat rural region around the lakes surrounding Scranton. It's very picturesque, and it's still pretty close to NYC.
All I know for sure right now is that I'm leaving Kentucky as fast as I reasonably can. I truly forgot how much it can suck here.
I'm a little interested in the outer boroughs. Can a person live in Queens and get to Manhattan easily? How about Staten Island?
Staten Island is a suburban hole.
Queens though, is an easy commute from many areas. It takes me 10 minutes to get from Long Island City to midtown Manhattan from Long Island City. Brooklyn is similar, but with fast access to downtown instead.
I'm a little interested in the outer boroughs. Can a person live in Queens and get to Manhattan easily? How about Staten Island?
Staten Island is a suburban hole.
Queens though, is an easy commute from many areas. It takes me 10 minutes to get from Long Island City to midtown Manhattan from Long Island City. Brooklyn is similar, but with fast access to downtown instead.
The key in both is to live near the subway.
This is correct. It depends entirely on where you live in whatever outer borough you are talking about. Some places in Brooklyn you can be in Manhattan in effectively no time at all because it's just a few subway stops. Other places in Brooklyn owning a car is mandatory. The same goes for Queens. I live in a spot in Astoria where I can walk to the subway. There are other places in Astoria closer to Laguardia Airport where walking to the subway can take 15+ minutes, and you probably need to own a car. If you live out in Flushing, that is still Queens, but the subway stops are few and far between. Even if you get on the subway, it takes some time for it to get to Manhattan. I have a co-workers who lives in a place that is technically Brooklyn, and his commute to Manhattan is still almost an hour each way.
I'm a little interested in the outer boroughs. Can a person live in Queens and get to Manhattan easily? How about Staten Island?
TL;DR: NYC IS BIG
Not really. It's about a fifth of the size of my city, a thousand odd square kilometers vs five thousand and change. It's much, much more dense, though - IIRC, it's something like four times the population of Brisbane. The sheer size isn't what's impressive about it.
I'm a little interested in the outer boroughs. Can a person live in Queens and get to Manhattan easily? How about Staten Island?
TL;DR: NYC IS BIG
Not really. It's about a fifth of the size of my city, a thousand odd square kilometers vs five thousand and change. It's much, much more dense, though - IIRC, it's something like four times the population of Brisbane. The sheer size isn't what's impressive about it.
I didn't say it was the biggest. The thing is people just see Manhattan and don't realize that Queens and Brooklyn do stretch out quite far to the East.
Are there bad/crappy parts of Astoria at all? I'm looking at purchasing in the next few years and prices didn't look bad there at all. Like 300k for a 2 bedroom.
Comments
* - I did give it back, though.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that Europe is a lot of cultural variation in not much space. Living in Austria, one is a short drive away from Hungary and Poland. An hour more into the Eastern Block things get even more different. Or, go south, and go to the Balklans. Turkish and Ottomon rule shaped their culture to be drastically different from the forces of Western Europe. Obviously none of this is the culture shock Walker was talking about, but it's still significant.
Seriously guys.
This might be better addressed in a new thread, but Scott's usual bluster about New York, and my current freedom to live wherever I want makes me interested in NYC.
It's gonna take about five years for me to get my DNP degree at U.K. Then, I can practice as a psychiatric nurse practitioner. There might be some adjustments along the way, such as I might go to a Nurse Anesthetist school if I can get accepted.
So after this degree, I get to live anywhere I want. Which would be better? Chicago is a good health care area. Baltimore is as well, and I know Baltimore very well - I would have no trouble at all figuring out a good place to live and work there.
Boston has some appeal as well, but NYC is just there, waiting. I've always wanted to live there, and, in a way, I even feel like I have to some extent, through the pages of Marvel Comics.
However, there are several little things that I kinda hope are myths, such as the ridiculous rents, the small apartments, and so forth. Could a person avoid smallness in size and hugeness in rent if they were willing to live in some less fashionable burough, like Queens or Staten island?
How about living in New York State, or even Philadelphia? That way, a person could get to NYC very easily but not have to actually deal with the problems of living there.
And, with all due respect to Scott, when he says that NYC is relatively free of disasters, did the hurricanes somehow not register with him? Is NYC going to become more and more disaster-prone due to climate change? Maybe Chicago would be better after all.
One is to live in a place that is nasty. Lots of rat and roach infested places or pre-war buildings are much less expensive and in not awful locations.
The other way is to live far away. Living far away is what we did in Beacon for a few years, so I have some experience in that department. It sucks. If you don't live on a subway line, then you have to use a car, bus, or commuter rail to get to the city. You'll be in the city every day working, but you won't really be able to do anything here. You will lose at least two hours a day, every day, to commuting. If something cool is happening in the city at night, you can't attend because the trains/buses don't run all night. You have to leave the city by midnight, and even then you will get home after 2am.
Think about this. I was in the 5 Boro Bike Tour. There were people that flew all the way around the world to participate. I woke up, biked to the start. The middle of the race passed my house, so I stopped to take a short rest. At the end, I just biked home well before dinner time. I was able to shower and do some laundry.
When there's a weird movie, it's guaranteed to be playing near you. Miyazaki movies were playing at IFC all this past week. I recently went to the MoMA after work one day and saw THE Starry Night. And I just saw it again the other day, and the Scream is there now too. Just hanging there. I could go and see it again if I wanted, and it would only take a few minutes out of my day. What price can you put on that? The price of my gigantic rent. That is the price.
That raises the specter of Philadelphia again. I kinda think that Philly would have lots of nice cultural opportunities, and a person could always get to NYC easily. Philly might be a good compromise.
I'm a little interested in the outer boroughs. Can a person live in Queens and get to Manhattan easily? How about Staten Island?
I'm familiar with that two-hour commute. That was my commuting time when I lived in Baltimore and worked in DC.
There's a nice little area of Pennsylvania that I find a little interesting. It's the somewhat rural region around the lakes surrounding Scranton. It's very picturesque, and it's still pretty close to NYC.
All I know for sure right now is that I'm leaving Kentucky as fast as I reasonably can. I truly forgot how much it can suck here.
Queens though, is an easy commute from many areas. It takes me 10 minutes to get from Long Island City to midtown Manhattan from Long Island City. Brooklyn is similar, but with fast access to downtown instead.
The key in both is to live near the subway.
TL;DR: NYC IS BIG
Staten Island.