Your wish has been granted, there are plenty of countries other than Bhutan with relatively few tourists. Pakistan, Laos, Cambodia I think are all way less popular with tourists than Vietnam and Thailand, for example. Loads of countries in Africa are barely visited by tourists too. No need to pay a daily fee in those places.
With that attitude it sounds like they wouldn't even want you to visit. A huge part of the appeal is that Bhutan remains very unique, with a distinct culture and few tourists.
They don't want people to come who are looking to climb a famous mountain, go partying, chill on the beach, and other things people go to nearby countries for.
I'm from the Netherlands and certain parts of Amsterdam are full of tourists almost all the time, with very few normal people living there. Venice is an even more extreme example, or some party islands in Asia or the Mediterranean.
Bhutan goes in the opposite direction. By making it so expensive to visit they filter out a whole bunch of people who could/would ruin what they want to preserve.
Wat gaaf zeg. Allemaal mensen, waaronder veel jongeren, die nu problemen hebben met gokken. Maar nu is een klein groepje rijke mensen nog rijker geworden! Dus was het toch wel waard.
if those were his actual proposals of course he wouldnt be the best candidate
OK but my question still remains: where is the line for you? Because I think it's fair to say that he would want to make abortion illegal, abolish sexual education in its current form, and let terrible things happen to the environment because he doesn't believe in climate change.
Those things are apparently not enough for you because you still say he's the best candidate. Maybe you disagree, but I think it would be terrible if women lost their right to a safe abortion or if children wouldn't receive sex education.
Why not cast a voto en blanco? Just because other politicians are worse doesn't mean you have to vote for Milei.
You say Argentines aren't stupid and I agree. Americans and Brazilians are also not stupid. But how did far-right populist presidents work out for them?
I'm not saying the current politicians in power are good, but why support this asshole just because he opposes who you oppose?
The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend, it could just be another enemy.
So by that logic as long as a candidate doesn't support the "practices that put us in this decadence" they are good enough to vote for?
If this guy would be in favor of rounding up all gay people and shooting them, would you still vote for him? What about making it illegal for women to do paid work? What about shutting down all newspapers? If he proposed those things, would you still think he's the best candidate?
If not, then where is your line? Because to me he already seems pretty fucking extreme.
You can also not vote or cast a voto en blanco as a protest. Why not do that instead of vote for a Trump / Bolsonaro type person? Do you think they were successful presidents who made things better in the US / Brazil?
Bizarre. But the article outlines a lot more vulnerabilities. Seems like every part of this device is poorly secured.
IOActive's hacking technique exploited glaring security vulnerabilities they found in the shufflers, the researchers say: They bought their own Deckmates for testing from second-hand sellers, one of whom told them a password used for maintenance or repair. They found that this password and others they extracted from the Deckmates' code were configured in the shuffler with no easy way to change them, suggesting they likely work on almost any Deckmate in the wild. They also found that the most powerful “root" password to control the shuffler—which, like all the Deckmate's passwords, they declined to publicly reveal—was relatively weak.
This makes me so sad. Goddamn Correa fucked up the country with his corruption, idiotic economic policy (an insane reliance on oil), connections with organized crime, attacks on the press... Now he's fucked off to Belgium (where his wife is from), who refuse to extradite him.
Ecuador is seeing a big increase in drug related violence which until like ten years ago it didn't have. Covid made things a lot worse for sure, but the country was already going downhill and Correa's regime was a huge factor.
Lasso (the current president) certainly didn't make things any better. He's pro business, anti-abortion, part of the elite, and besides being anti-Correa not someone who I want in power.
Ecuador needs its own Nayib Bukele! But this assassination is going to scare a lot of candidates. Imagine wanting to implement a harsh crackdown on drug gangs... You're gonna put a massive target on your back.
I'm hoping Yaku Pérez can do well again, but I'm very worried about Luisa González. If she wins I can see her pardon Correa and bring him back to Ecuador. If that happens the country is truly in deep, deep shit. Even more so than it is now.
Yes that's indeed great and I have contributed to OSM, but even for places with tags in multiple languages the search still didn't work great.
Perhaps it's been improved, but I think Organic Maps first searches for the primary name tag first and only later name:es or name:ca. But that means that when searching in Spanish in Valencia (where the name tags are in Valencian/Catalan), it would often give me results outside of Valencia but that would have the name of what I was looking for.
That's not impossible to improve, but it's difficult to get those things consistently right. Google knows so much about its users it can make really accurate predictions about which results are most relevant.
But what's for me way more significant is that OSM is quite unforgiving when it comes to typos or slightly inaccurate spelling. Organic Maps has that problem and openstreetmap.org as well. As an example: there is a part of the city called l'Eixample. If you search for l'Eixample on OSM you will find it no problem: https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=l'Eixapmle
For me that is really frustrating when I'm outside somewhere and have to quickly look up some place on my phone. Most of the time I can still find it with organic maps, but it can definitely be more cumbersome than with google maps.
I use Organic Maps as much as possible. For public transport I use another app (not google maps but a local app for my country). Sometimes I check google maps if I can't find a place or if the opening times are missing on openstreetmap (the source for organic maps).
The main issue with organic maps (and I think any map app based on OSM data) is search. Especially in places where multiple languages are used I've found it quite frustrating.
Valencia, for example, has Valencian/Catalan as its main language on OSM, but Spanish is very common. If I search in Spanish I don't get good results. A small typo will also mess things up. That's pretty frustrating and means I often have to go to the website of wherever I'm going to get the proper name in Valenciano without typos, or I have to look it up on google maps.
A fundamental reason for the lack of clarity over the role sex or drug trafficking plays in the fate of Uruguay’s missing women is that neither prosecutors nor police are looking for the evidence.
So, are the police involved in the trafficking and that's why they're not doing anything and withholding information? Or are they just incompetent / underfunded / undertrained?
It's like they actively don't want to solve these cases.
Does Venezuela have enough electricity to sell? If so, I suppose this is a good thing. More cooperation between neighbours, clean energy, remote communities with (cheaper) access to electricity...
I'm totally opposed to Maduro's regime, but isolating Venezuela is probably not going to improve the lives of average people there.
It's a complicated situation because this will improve the lives of people in remote communities while at the same time some (or a lot) of money will end up in politicians' pockets. Still, hopefully this will be a net positive.
Huizenprijzen hebben meer met vraag en aanbod te maken dan hoeveel geld er naar architecten gaat.
Dat architecten minder opdrachten krijgen betekent waarschijnlijk alleen maar dat woningen nóg duurder worden want het aanbod gaat (relatief aan de vraag) omlaag. Blijkbaar is het bouwen van huizen zo duur en moeilijk dat ondanks de enorme vraag naar woningen het het niet waard is om te doen.
Behalve dat GL anti-kernergie is en daarmee voor een partij met Groen in zijn naam best een sterk anti-klimaat sentiment vertolkt…
Ben je van mening dat kernenergie een toekomst heeft in Nederland? Ik persoonlijk niet en ik denk eigenlijk dat het niet realistisch is om te denken van wel.
Een nieuwe centrale bouwen kost extreem veel tijd en geld en bovendien is het in Nederland zeer moeilijk om überhaupt een plek te vinden. Zonne-energie wordt alsmaar goedkoper en tegen de tijd dat een eventuele kerncentrale af is zal zon nóg goedkoper zijn. Puur qua kosten is kernenergie echt een super slechte keuze.
Ik denk dat GL lange tijd vanwege hun principes of zelfs uit angst tegen kernenergie is geweest, maar vandaag de dag is kernenergie economisch gezien gewoon totaal onlogisch.
Your wish has been granted, there are plenty of countries other than Bhutan with relatively few tourists. Pakistan, Laos, Cambodia I think are all way less popular with tourists than Vietnam and Thailand, for example. Loads of countries in Africa are barely visited by tourists too. No need to pay a daily fee in those places.