Very few people on HN will have been alive when there was a county of London. It ceased to exist in the 1960s.
The UK does not require this layer of subdivision to exist, so it's not that there's a different county or set of counties covering the same area now but rather there is no county. This is a contrast to say the US system where AIUI there must be a county and in some cases that county doesn't really matter (e.g. New York County in New York City aka Manhattan) but it has to exist anyway.
City status is very different here, the Monarch (ie now Charlie) gets to decide what is or is not a city, but because that's arbitrary it also has very few consequences, it's a cosmetic basically, you can write "City" on some signs if you like, but if you feel like a small town you still feel like a small town, and if you already feel like a bustling city then having the word doesn't make a real difference.
And the US the a sovereign state made up of 50 states. They used to be called that because they were independent countries
There are other offenders, but the US and UK together are probably the main reason English no longer has concise but unambiguous way to refer to sovereign states
> They used to be called that because they were independent countries
The latter part is true of exactly one US state (Hawaii), but otherwise false. They are called that because they are political bodies capable of international relations. The 13 founding states were British colonies; Florida, New Mexico and Texas were famously Mexican and/or Spanish colonies, and the western half of the continental states were French colonies (though largely unexplored by France, so only nominally held).
I believe GP is technically correct in several ways. The first 13 states were mostly independent and sovereign under the Articles of Confederation from 1781 until 1789, when the US Constitution superseded it and established a much more significant central government.
Texas was an independent republic from 1836 until US annexation at the end of 1845. Although Mexico did not recognize the independence of the Republic of Texas, numerous other countries did.
California is more of an edge-case. It was arguably an independent republic for a few weeks in 1846. And a similar story with Florida: the Republic of West Florida existed for a couple months in 1810. But both of these cases were basically small uprisings that weren't broadly recognized by other countries.
For even further confusion "London" actually contains two cities: London and Westminster. London was a walled city but Westminster was not. So "London" was we know it today is more like Westminster than London.
A cathedral is neither necessary nor sufficient for city status. City status in the UK is given by the monarch and that's all there is to it. Cambridge is a city without a cathedral and Bury St Edmunds is a town with a cathedral.
New York is an obvious example of two entities of the same name, with the “City of” version being a small part of the larger version. It’s just on a much bigger scale.
Eh. If you live in Schaumburg and someone from England asks where you live, you'd probably just say Chicago.
The Windy City does have a kind of "get out" in that people refer to the larger metro area as "Chicagoland" whereas London is still just London thirty miles out from the financial district.
About 7 or 8 years ago I worked at a startup which got money from Softbank / Masayoshi Son. Our founder and our CTO went to meet him in LA IIRC to pitch.
They came back telling us he was basically asleep during the pitch meeting which was scheduled for only 10 minutes anyway.
Our business/product really had no chance of succeeding at this point and most knew it. We got some money from Softbank anyway - forgot how much. Our management was basically laughing about how easy it was to get funding from Softbank.
I jumped ship a year later or so and that was good timing.
This is one of my arguments that startups are mostly about luck - because smart people who are highly incentivised to pick wimmers, with all the data they need to pick winners, all the people and compute they need to pick winners, can't pick winners.
Mayoshi Son isn't playing the VC game like most traditional VC funds. He's operating on a massive scale and his LPs are sovereign wealth funds, who can have other geo-political priorities than pure profit.
Some people don't know that the usual VC game is often still be profitable for the VC even if their fund isn't profitable. VCs are investing the money of their LPs (Limited Partners), who are usually very large institutional investors with billions under management (think state pension funds, Harvard endowment). Most of the LP's funds are invested in a diversified blend of safer, lower-return vehicles but they take up to 5% and invest it in high-risk, high-return things like venture capital and hedge funds. But they spread it across a dozen or more firms with different strategies.
So each VC is playing a portfolio bets and their LPs are playing a portfolio of porfolios. The LPs just need one of their 12+ VC funds to be a lead investor on a unicorn win. This math usually works out in their favor (there's now >50 years of data). VC funds charge their LPs a yearly management fee of a few percent of the invested capital - whether the fund makes money or not. Over the 10 year life of a fund, this adds up and covers the VCs overhead and very generous salaries - usually >$500K at larger firms. In the VC's view, $500K/yr isn't getting long-term "rich" but it'll pay for a pretty lux life. Even with the VC taking out fees, the LP's math still works thanks to only needing one VC firm to win and if one or two more of their VC funds just return 2x or 3x. It maths up even better.
When your personal worst-case downside is $500K/yr minimum with substantial upside, it's not a bad gig. However, these VC types are generally top-of-class Ivy League grads, who are clearly very sharp and ultra high-potential - the type who'd expect $500K earning opptys on Wall Street, consulting, investment banking, etc.
I think this model and portfolio investment strategy is the result of the fact that VCs can't pick winners, though. They are forced to take this "high-risk, high-reward" position in the portfolio because they can't predict the result of any of their investments, even over a whole fund's worth of investments.
Imagine a world where startup success had nothing (or very little) to do with luck, where you could plug a bunch of standard metrics into a complex algorithm (probably a spreadsheet) and it would spit out an utterly reliable set of statistics on likely return. Something that an actuary could come up with, as they do for insurance/assurance.
In this world, VC isn't high-risk, high-reward. There would be categories of VC fund, some would be lower-risk, lower-reward, others higher risk, and yet others that would be low-risk, high-reward (but priced accordingly).
The fact that we don't have this, and all VC is high-risk, high-reward (and often no reward at all, even across an entire fund), is testament to the fact that we can't pick winners. And the reason we can't pick winners is that startup success is very non-deterministic, i.e. mostly down to luck.
Lottery winners do not tell the world they are smarter than the rest of us, or go on podcasts, write op-eds or start websites telling the rest of us how the world should be run.
At the risk of identifying myself to colleagues, I have a comment I regularly make on SharePoint sites I end up owning inside my company:
Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering Sharepoint; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee
> I would prefer using pen and paper over Sharepit.
I use pen and paper for a lot of purposes for which other people use some arbitrary application or smartphone app. This is thus in my opinion just a matter of what you are used to and what your taste is (I often say: "Simply use the tool/application that you know well: it will often be suitable.").
The new Reddit web interface is an abomination.