Hacker News Reader

Comment by bjornsing | Hacker News Reader

I like how you call Washington D.C. a "town". That's a very modest description of the capital of the world's only superpower. :P

Now, Järpen in Sweden is a town (with about 1400 inhabitants). It has a restaurant called Fäviken. This restaurant has two Michelin stars [1].

1. https://www.viamichelin.com/web/Restaurant/Jarpen-83005-Favi...

View on HN

Not sure how tongue in cheek you're being, but for those for whom English isn't a first language, calling a large city like DC or NYC a 'town' is pretty common, and is a more colloquial way to describe a region rather than to indicate the size of the named region. Often it is used interchangeably with 'place', for instance: "I've lived in New York City all my life, I've got to get out of that town."

Must be a regional thing because I've never heard of cities like NYC or SF referred to as towns. I would also say "get out of town" is a saying that means "I need to get out of this specific place." Whether the place is a town, city, region is besides the point.

It's a wry/sarcastic idiom, like calling the Atlantic Ocean "the pond". Nobody actually thinks the Atlantic Ocean is a pond.

Calling the Atlantic "the pond" is so cringe worthy. Why that ever caught on.

That probably comes from the 'English Understatement' school of thought.

"New York, New York, a helluva town. The Bronx is up but the Battery's down"

Frank Sinatra would like a word.

London is often called a town, e.g. London Town. If you said "I'm going into town" or "I got it in town" most people would know where you meant.

also uptown, downtown, cross-town, going out of town... town has no connotation of size in English. in fact you have to use modifiers like 'little town', 'big town', etc.

I'll take you to foggy London town 'cause you are my little gentleman.

China clearly qualifies as a superpower. Though, it's influence is more economic than military it still wields considerable influence on the global stage.

EX: This is more than a decade out of date, but it's a useful reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower#/media/File:1_AD_to...

Being classified as a "superpower" is a term in political science that means the country has the ability to project unparalleled influence on a global scale.

Don't let the prominence of discussions of China's "rise" fool you though, it is most certainly not a superpower. It certainly has the capacity to be one some day, but its power projection capability is fairly restricted to its immediate vicinity in East Asia still.

I must respectfully disagree. China is the worlds manufacturing center. The power it projects globally cannot be understated.

I think this is about military power.

I am not an expert but I don't think this is true. I think that would make for a very narrow definition of power, and by extension superpower. Intuitively power stems from all sorts of leverage. Could be knowledge based, economic, any number of factors. One term that is often bandied about is so-called soft power, cultural factors and what have you.

I say thank goodness military might is not the only measure of power or we'd be in a sad state of affairs when you come to think of it. That's not to undersell the force projection of military might, and does not deny that the US (and Russia to a lesser extent) derive enjoy an outsized place on the world stage owing to military might.

Put it another way. You may be right but I do not want you to be right. I don't want to live in that world.

He's not right.

If you discount China as a superpower, then you discount a country that could single-handedly throw the entire world into a state of political, economic, and military chaos overnight.

Defining power as military-only is as naîve as defining it as male-only or violence-only or sword-only.

You are right. One should take care defining a word so narrowly that it can only apply to one thing. If "superpower" by definition means "characteristics only the USA has" then why not just call it "USA?"

Let's be realistic here, the only reason China is the worlds manufacturing center, is because Western companies are exploiting their cheap labor. Beyond that, they crank out everyone's cheap knockoffs.

> is a term in political science that means the country has the ability to project unparalleled influence on a global scale

What is the quantitative metric of this?

GDP, military bases outside of the nation, aircraft carriers, deals/alliances with nations etc. There are far more qualitative ones like influence..

And China couldn't? Well beside them making everything, they own or underwrite a vast amount of global infrastructure too. They can buy a lot more influence than the US could.

When faced with economic warfare, a country can simply nationalize all of the enemy country's assets. Who cares if you own every oil well in California, if you try to exploit that we just move troops in and take control. How does China defend the infrastructure they own?

Infrastructure funding is political influence. Non-warry stuff.

But if you want to wage war on China be prepared to go back to the 50s. China and its immediate neighbours make everything. And have done for decades. No country has the standing manufacturing capability (facilities, machinery or trained/robotic workforce) to replace what China does for them. Some other Asian countries manufacturer electronics and India and Pakistan do textiles like nobody's business.

This is where that influence from earlier came in. They've traded cash for foreign government bonds to ensure great tariffs and to stop protectionist policies. They pegged their currency to ensure their exports undercut everybody else.

Automobiles are pretty much the last serious manufacturing done in market countries... And where do you think many of those source their parts and steel from?

So yeah, you piss off China and they have the physical wherewithal to embargo almost all material imports. Your economy dies overnight.

You take back a bridge and a nuclear power plant. Big whoop. What's your next move?

The English refer to London as a "town". E.g. Town and Country Magazine (est.1769). [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_and_Country_Magazine

In fact, in the north at least, when we say "town" as though its a proper noun, we mean the city centre. To me, that's Manchester despite living in Salford. For example, "I'm off to town this weekend" means I'm going Manchester.

Not quite. London is clearly a city and referred to as such, unless you're someone in high society, in which case it is just 'Town'.

To complicate this further, "The City" or "The City of London" refers to a small area in central London where a lot of banks and financial institutions are headquartered. London as a whole is called "London" or "Greater London", but not "The city of London".

In the UK, "The City" is often used to refer to the London financial industry, much like "Westminster" is used to refer to the central government.

"Town" refers to urban centres in general, not just London.

> unless you're someone in high society, in which case it is just 'Town'

Please give us an example of this usage.

Go read any of Dorothy Sayer's Peter Wimsey novels --- not only are they excellent, but they're an interesting insight into upper-class cultureof the 1920s. The main character says this a lot.

Says what, though? I'm just looking for a single sentence that demonstrates the particular usage.

Search this for 'Town':

http://www.gutenberg.ca/ebooks/sayers-busman/sayers-busman-0...

It all seems perfectly normal to me apart from the capitalisation. Is that what is notable about it or is that a tic of this author?

"On the way up to Town..."

"We started back to Town..."

"I'd come up to Town one morning..."

Town is always London in this context.

A Google Books search for "in town for the season" gives a result in Memoirs of a Peeress (1837) [0] which unambiguously refers to London. (The difficulty is not so much finding an example, as finding an example which explains which town is referred to, since it's "obviously" London)

   [0] https://books.google.de/books?id=ZdpPAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA197&dq="town+for+the+season

I just asked a member of high society (my current employer) as to whether 'Town' is used to refer to London. His reply was exemplary:

> Only obnoxious wankers from London will, small minded people [...] will also talk about 'their little house in the country' when they mean it is barely on the outskirts of a city!

As somebody from the true North (with family originating in the North of Scotland) the way people refer to places always intrigues me. I once had a friend who referred to Southport (population 90k), where he grew up, as a small town.

I think most people don't actually have a real concept of the hamlet -> village -> town -> city relationship and so the words are easily repurposed. However I do not think doing this is somehow bad, or incorrect.

I'm from Ireland. In the version of English I grew up with, we refer to the nearest big town or city - wherever the business, social and cultural life of the area is concentrated, basically - as "town." We would say, for instance:

- "I'm going into town."

- "Let's meet in town."

- "Is there anything going on in town tonight?"

When I lived in the south-east of Ireland, "town" referred to the central business district of the nearby city of 50k inhabitants. When I lived in Dublin, "town" was Dublin city centre. And if I lived in or near London, "town" would refer to areas of central London.

It really has nothing to do with whether the place qualifies as a village, town, city or what have you.

Which was my point. There are at least two different uses for the words, and they are more relevant to some people than others. Neither is 'incorrect'.

Exception: if you live in a city and are going into the city centre, you might say "I'm heading into town".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com