Waiting for the sea
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
The main industry there is now "sitting and waiting", and the old waterfront is a dismal shadow of a bustling fishing port.
One thing that we found interesting was North Korea's involvement - there are quite a few buildings in Aralsk emblazoned with Kim Il Sung - it turns out they invested in the cotton boom, and provided "labourers" to the USSR.
Tourism is practically non-existent - the only way to get there is a long, long drive (or cycle... we bumped into an Aussie cycling from Shanghai to Dublin (we were en route from London to Bishkek)) through barren desert.
It's hard to see how Aralsk will continue to exist, with or without the return of the Aral, as the population is overwhelmingly old (although we did see a rather extravagant Kazakh wedding parade while there), and levels of corruption in Kazakhstan are pretty astounding, meaning that getting any concern off the ground is a challenge for your average person, unless they happen to be the son-in-law of the local police chief.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when the Baikonur lease is up (most there believe this will happen much sooner than 2050), as it's a major source of revenue for the region, and provides much of the raison d'etre for the surrounding towns and cities. Most people we met between Aktobe and Kyzylorda were either in some way involved in supporting the operations there, or were subsisting, or providing auxiliary services to people directly involved in Baikonur.
One final thing that seems to generally be missing from people's understanding of the Aral sea - it hasn't "dried up", so much as "gone underground" - there's still a vast amount of (severely polluted) water there - if you wander down to the old sea floor, most of it is several-yard-deep mud - very little of it is dusty and dry.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/233072.Chasing_the_Sea
Altough, looking at it again now from desktop Chrome, I can't reproduce this, even at a small screen size.
The only companies left using them will be those with no concern about ROI such as here; the state-funded BBC.
In particular the series of 3 slides (pages) - that showed the lake shrinking over time were quite effective at conveying just how much of a calamity the situation is.
The BBC is not funded by the state. It's funded by the people in the UK who pay for a TV licence, plus some income from selling its products outside the UK.
Its definition of ROI is different to that of a purely commercial player.
See my comment above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9117324
The BBC is not state funded, state owned and state controlled perhaps - but that's a whole other discussion. Television owners can elect to pay or not pay for a TV License which is what funds the BBC, there is a choice. What is state funded are the 4 million or so licenses which are free to anyone over 75.
> The state has made a law that requires anybody who wants to own a television to pay money to the BBC
Not quite correct. You can own a television and decline to pay the TV license provided you don't watch or record live broadcasts. This means I can watch stuff on iPlayer on my Roku/PC/Android etc and the BBC can't force me to pay a license.
I ditched my TV license back in 2006 for political reasons, I've had a couple of visits from the TV License "enquiry officers" (who are in fact employees of Capita, a public limited company). You don't have to permit TV License staff access to your home or provide them with any personal details. In fact you can permanently deny any TV Licensing representative from setting foot on your property. This is known as "Withdrawing implied right of access" [1][2].
[1]: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-administering-the-lic...
[2]: http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Withholding%20implied%20right%20...
I think the news industry is basically trying everything to see how to capture the increasingly mobile user base. Hopefully this is a step away from advertisors' impression frenzy.