>> |
Anonymous File :-(, x)
>>25380 Oh lawd... you are an idiot.
I see you can copy-paste a link, but can you actually understand the criteria used and see why the whole thing is flawed and bullshit?
Follow the link in>>25231to see all the criteria that are NOT considered in the study.
Urbanization? Not taken into account. Skyscrapers / Skyline? Not taken into account. Poverty? Not taken into account. Quality of life? Not taken into account. Educational institutions? Not taken into account. Universities? Not taken into account. Research facilities? Not taken into account. Headquarters for international organizations? Not taken into account. World Heritage Sites? Not taken into account. Cultural facilities, theatres, operas, film festivals? Not taken into account. Political influence? Not taken into account. Economic development? Not taken into account.
Instead, the index focuses on bullshit irrelevant data like: 1. Expatriate cost of living - Some of the best cities in the world are actually very cheap, and many shitholes like Shanghai or Douala are very expensive 2. Annual passenger air traffic in a single airport - What about cities that are far away from all airport connections, like Sydney? Panama is not a main city but it connects most airline flights in the Americas. 3. Number of billionaires - What does this have to do with the city? This is automatically biased against countries with a large population and more social inequality. 4. Economic output - Biased against larger populations.
The end result is that a British think-tank happens to put London in the first spot. Meanwhile, third world shitholes like Caracas or Sao Paulo, with no culture or history at all, rank higher than Berlin or The Hague.
Pic related shows you why your index is bullshit. Caracas, Venezuela ranks higher than Berlin, Germany
|