4 ms·
Density either prevents better infrastructure in the US, or it doesn't. My use of statistics was merely to show that density has no relation to the existence o
by dublinben 13y ago
Density either prevents better infrastructure in the US, or it doesn't. My use of statistics was merely to show that density has no relation to the existence of fiber internet infrastructure. The US cannot be too sprawling for fiber if areas with lower density in other countries have better internet. Major cities cannot also be too dense when cities with higher densities abroad also have better internet.
This is a commonly repeated argument in favor of the status-quo in the US, and I'm just trying to refute it whenever possible.
- saosebastiao 13y agoYour use of statistics is meaningless because average density is meaningless. It suffers from the same resolution problem as the coastline paradox [1]. I'm an example of this: If you measure density by the block, I live in a density of 120,000 persons/km2, but if you measure density by the city, I live in a density of 1720 persons/km2, and if you measure density by the MSA, I live in a density of 168 persons/km2. I have gigabit, and the fact that I live in an MSA with 168 persons/km2 is in no way a refutation of the fact that density matters for infrastructure costs. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox
- brenschluss 13y agoSaying average density is meaningless is like saying, because of the coastline paradox, even a small island's coastline is the same length as a large continent's coastline -- they're both infinite!
- saosebastiao 13y agoCorrect. However, if you can define a level of resolution to measure the coastline/density, then then it can be compared. Average density/coastline is meaningless without context.
- brenschluss 13y agoGreat point.