>UK is the fourth most technologically advanced country in the world
>South Korea, Denmark and Iceland narrowly beat the UK to top the rankings
>Britain has the fourth-best communications technology in the world, trailing closely behind highly connected nations like South Korea and the Nordic countries.
>According to the International Telecommunication Union's index, which takes into account a number of factors such as broadband speeds, the percentage of people using the internet and the number of broadband subscriptions, the UK has a score of 8.75.
>Infographic: static.independent.co.uk
Source:
>independent.co.uk
What're technolo/g/y's thoughts on this?
"UK is the fourth most technologically advanced country in the world" - The Independent
Other urls found in this thread:
scimagojr.com
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
itu.int
wipo.int
timeshighereducation.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
We're 4th but can't even stop our NHS from being hacked by ransomware? LEL
The strength of a network is dependent on its weakest.
Aka humans. The more it interacts with humans, the worse secure it is.
I'm in London. Makes sense. The government provides free wifi in many places, but my gchq tinfoil hat wont use them.
>how many people have Internet defines technological advancement
What a fucking joke. America is the most technologically advanced nation in the world, even with out shit last-mile Internet connectivity.
t. *.co.uk
fuken kek
keep your britbong shit outside of Sup Forums, sage
>technologically advanced only means good internet connectivity
meanwhile korea, UK, and nordic countries cant into space
>Angery Amerifags.
Whilst I don't agree with it.
East Asia, certainly Japan, is more advanced than the United States.
As for bullshit about space travel and technological advancement, you wouldn't call the USSR more technologically advanced than the UK, or Japan, or many other countries.
So shut the fuck up you retards.
>As for bullshit about space travel and technological advancement, you wouldn't call the USSR more technologically advanced than the UK, or Japan, or many other countries.
in that specific scenario, the USSR definitely shits on those specific countries space adventures.
landing on a astroid is great, but compared to venus surface, nahhhh
>still require a moon base
>it'll never happen
>Japan
>advanced
It's nice and clean, and polite, but it's stuck in the 2000s. Korea actually is advanced, the cities at least, and they're the market leaders in a lot of consumer tech and component markets, so there's no surprise there. But the US still leads the world in overall advancements. No two ways about it
>UK
>a country
they say americans don't know geometry but bongs can't even read a map kek
He fell for muh space meme
>American education
To bad ARM Holdings was sold to the Japanese
UK have no tech exports now.
Okay, then it ONLY applies to space travel and doesn't spill over.
That's great.
You just debunked your own argument that it had bearing on 'general technological prowess'.
Nice one, dumb-dumb.
Japan is a world leader in tech, robotics; electronics and computer science.
Is it also ranked fifth in contribution to science:
>scimagojr.com
The United Kingdom is ranked third in science contribution: scimagojr.com
America is only ranked first, because of GDP and funding foreign scientists to do research in America.
Most famously, look at the Manhattan Project.
I wasn't the one who added it pointlessly into the conversation.
>What're technolo/g/y's thoughts on this?
Brexit is sure to take care of it
And by take care of I mean take behind the fence and shoot in the back of the head
At least it'll stop the enrichment... right? RIGHT?!
...
I thought the UK had horrible broadband
t. can't get more than 50Mbps in my area
The NHS is a fucking black hole for money, it's inefficiency is legendary. It needs to be abolished, or reformed into something focused on A&E only, leaving lesser problems up to private insurance. You need the insurance anyway if you want proper medical care, and if you don't, there's no need to waste tax dollars to give you placebos and make you live 1 week longer then publish your "heroic" story in newspapers as a testament to the NHS's accomplishments.
Except none of that is an actual argument against the NHS. Futile treatment on terminal patients is still a waste of money (perspective depending) whether it was funded publicly or privately.
Explain how exactly individuals bargaining against pharmas is more effective than (essentially) the entire tax-paying public unionising and bargaining as one?
Oh and also
>it's[sic] inefficiency is legendary
Really? Then why do Burgers (and other nations without universal care) pay so much more to not get free healthcare?
>Explain how exactly individuals bargaining against pharmas is more effective than (essentially) the entire tax-paying public unionising and bargaining as one?
You'd think, right?
But that's not how the incentives are aligned in a bureaucracy. The goal is to use as much of the budget as you can, in order to get a bigger budget. That's it. That's the only way individual managers rise in status and responsibility; by growing their department and that only happens by spending as much money as you can.
That's the oldest anecdote in the book.
Do you actually have any accounts of overspending like this and the quantifiable impact it has had (genuine question)?
Ultimately I look at how cheap per-taxpayer and how good our health care is compared to the rest of the world. You absolutely do not need insurance on top of the NHS 99% of the time.
>Futile treatment on terminal patients is still a waste of money
Thing is, if e.g. meningitis is treated early, it can be cured. In practice, if you go to a GP, they'll just send you home. Then, once it's well-developed, the NHS will finally acknowledge that something's wrong, you will be treated, and quite possibly iether die or end up with several limbs amputated. In the latter case you will get shitty prosthetics and the NHS will be the hero for "saving" you.
My argument is, if you want proper care, you have to get insurance. If you don't want to get insurance, you'll end up either dead or crippled anyway in cases like those, so why waste money.
Terminal patients are different because the money will be spent either way, with the same result either way, there's no choice to be made.
I would never attempt to live here without private insurance; problem is, I still have to pay for the NHS either way. And I can't just pay for it and rely on it because it's so shit.
> There is specific problem X with the NHS
Sorry, why is this a fundamental problem inherent to nationalised care, and not a specific issue that can be solved without abolishing the whole thing?
Not treating a problem early and letting it get to the state where treatment is both more expensive and less effective sounds like a simple process issue and not something inherent to the nature of public care.
> and the NHS will be the hero for "saving" you
You make it sound like a conspiracy to bolster the NHS's image
> I would never attempt to live here without private insurance
Do you have some kind of ultra-rare incurable condition or are you addicted to cosmetic surgery? Because it sounds like you've been meme'd somewhere along the line.
>> There is specific problem X with the NHS
What "specific" problem?
>Not treating a problem early and letting it get to the state where treatment is both more expensive and less effective sounds like a simple process issue and not something inherent to the nature of public care.
If this is what you meant, that's not a "specific" problem, that's a fundamental issue.
Sure, if the NHS were reformed to have actual non-shit GPs as the rule and not the exception and to be actually effective at what they do, I'd be happy to keep it around. But reforming so fundamentally such a giant governmental organisation is practically impossible - you'd be better off aboloshing the whole thing and making a new one from scratch.
>You make it sound like a conspiracy
No, just simple PR.
That isn't a measure of technological ability:
>tfw someone really think so
>nordic countries cant into space
Norway here, we'd like a word with you. Statistically speaking, so would Sweden and Finland. Our population densities are significantly lower than that of the US and yet our average Internet scores are better. Please find a new excuse, feel free to blame it on socialists because Nordic countries certainly don't have any of those.
>Futile treatment on terminal patients is still a waste of money
It absolutely is but you'll still find right wingers like the donald knocking the NHS for cutting loose a terminally ill 8 month old child.
Apparently the doctors came to the conclusion that the thing was suffering and prolonging treatment would be a waste of everyones time. This became an internet issue because apparently this is the kind of thing that right wingers would like to see healthcare paying for.
I'm British and have been here over a decade. Deal with it mongoloid.
Sweden is literally socialist:
>en.wikipedia.org
You don't know your sister cultures very well.
I know that in Norway we joke about Swedish people being stupid but you don't have to actively live up to the stereotype user.
I might have Norse blood (Norman), but that doesn't mean I get your fucking esoteric jokes!
>it's inefficiency is legendary
Only in the Murdoch news outlets. Cost per. patient with the NHS is actually cheap.
>It needs to be abolished
Sure why not, and burn your house down while you're at it.
>private insurance
I wonder who could be behind this post.
>Thing is, if e.g. meningitis is treated early, it can be cured. In practice, if you go to a GP, they'll just send you home.
Yeah that'll be why the NHS introduced Meningitis B vaccinations.
>if you want proper care, you have to get insurance
Goldstein, please.
>Britain has the fourth-best communications technology in the world
Haha. Now that's funny.
Worthless clickbait article literally making things up, as usual. The ITU Development Index has absolutely nothing to do with how 'technologically advanced' a country is.
itu.int
The actual metrics they use:
>Fixed-telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants
>Mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants
>International internet bandwidth per Internet user (Bit/s)
>Percentage of households with computer
>Percentage of households with Internet access
>Percentage of individuals using the Internet
>Fixed (wired)-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants
>Active mobile-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants
>Mean years of schooling
>Secondary gross enrolment ratio
>Tertiary gross enrolment ratio
Mission of the ITU:
>ITU is committed to connecting all the world's people – wherever they live and whatever their means.
Their goal is getting people in shit countries internet better access. That's all they care about, and all that the index measures.
The US very obviously the most technologically advanced country, you would have to be fucking delusional think otherwise.
Take your anti-semitic memes back to Sup Forums, please.
I was with you, up until:
>The US very obviously the most technologically advanced country, you would have to be fucking delusional think otherwise.
No, you, fucking, aren't.
I know you get told this, a lot, you aren't the best country™, nor is the United Kingdom.
Take your anti-NHS talking points back to the Daily Mail forums, please.
>encryption is illegal
>technologically advanced
uhhh
I like how they stop at 1 countries to put the US in last place.
Daily reminder The Independent is owned by a Russian oligarch.
F-fuck you!
Alright, that does call into question the veracity.
>accusing me of being jewish
>accusing me of being right-wing
???
>assuming I'm from the US
Annnd delusional butthurt Sup Forumsfag spotted. Honestly you are fucking retarded if you disagree with that. Sorry you don't like it, but it doesn't make it any less true.
Think about it: you've got to have an advanced telecommunications network to spy that well.
What?
Are you fucking serious?
You do know Sup Forums is PRO-'Murica?
You're literally using Sup Forums as a catchall term for the boogeyman, because you don't have an argument.
If you want facts, which I know'll hurt:
Global Innovation Index - Cornell University:
>1. Switzerland
>2. Sweden
>3. United Kingdom
>4. United States
>5. Finland
>6. Singapore
>7. Ireland
>8. Denmark
>9. The Netherlands
>10. Germany
Source:
>wipo.int
The Global Innovation Index ranking is based on seven categories: Research, Infrastructure, Institutions, Markets and Business Sophistication, and Commitment to Knowledge and Creativity.
Blown, the, fuck, out.
The U.S Sucks least as the internet speed/cost ratio is concerned. Some poor fuckers in the US are still stuck with Dial-Up (Yes Dial-up, the thing that uses phone lines and a modem that was all the rage in the late 80's, early -mid 90's). That's all they got, or switch to satellite based which also sucks and pay like $60 a month that's before the big upfront install cost. Then you got cable which ain't bad here where I live if you stick to 10 meg. But if you want the fastest they offer (100 meg) be prepared to pay $100 a month and the fact that you won't see 100 meg all the time, more like half that if at all.
>irrelevant board
>made up of irrelevant representatives
>from irrelevant countries
>using irrelevant standards
>make an irrelevant algorithm
>to say they're the best
wow
>WIPO
>Made up
Son.
And then, if you want, we'll look at university rankings for STEM:
>Computer science:
1) Oxford - UK
2) California Institute of Technology
3) Stanford
4) Cambridge - UK
5) MIT
>Mathematics:
1) Oxford - UK
2) California Institute of Technology
3) Stanford
4) Cambridge - UK
5) MIT
>Physics:
1) Oxford - UK
2) California Institute of Technology
3) Stanford
4) Cambridge - UK
5) MIT
>General Engineering:
1) Oxford - UK
2) California Institute of Technology
3) Stanford
4) Cambridge - UK
5) MIT
>EE:
1) Oxford - UK
2) California Institute of Technology
3) Stanford
4) Cambridge - UK
5) MIT
And so on, it is like that for pretty much every STEM subject, Oxford almost always at the top.
Source:
timeshighereducation.com
You have LITERALLY no idea what you're talking about and that most certainly isn't an argument.
It's because refugees only know how to make tablets.
Joking aside, if you live in the UK you know how much degeneracy there is. The party (government) that essentially won wants to ban porn and censor social media that isn't facebook...let that sink in.
I'm just happy we're fourth; should be last.
Wait.
Wasn't internet in the UK dogshit just a couple of years ago?
What happened?
Oxford's a shithole, I'd rather go Rill.
>cherrypicking random irrelevant ranking
>Blown, the, fuck, out.
kek.
Fortunately I don't need to argue with you about this any more than I need to argue about the color of the sky. You'll look like much less of a dipshit if you don't let your feelings affect your judgement so much.
Bullshit. We have Aalto-1 satellite.
>Wasn't internet in the UK dogshit just a couple of years ago?
Not really, no?
I was getting 512k down on DOCSIS Cable lets see...over 20 years ago now.
Also not an argument.
Do you really want me to find another one to BTFO again with?
I've already done it twice:
, most certainly.
, fairly, but with plausible error.
You've provided nothing.
When are you retards gonna understand that cherry picking random fucking rankings on irrelevant bullshit means nothing?
I'd call USSR more technologically advanced than the UK. Japan too.
>USSR more technologically advanced than the UK
After all, they did hack the elections.
But it works when you want to prove:
'MURICA, NUMBA 1!
Fuck off, hypocrite.
Delusional, they're 49th or something on the Human Development Index.
No one is providing you with 'arguments' because
1) You haven't provided any either, you're just pulling random useless rankings out of your ass to fit your agenda
2) There isn't anything to argue about, the conclusion is incredibly obvious. I don't argue with flat-earthers either.
List of Icelandic technological achievements:
-
>technologically advanced means you have a higher chance of getting free wifi at street corners
>[The USSR are] 49th or something on the Human Development Index.
A country that hasn't existed since 1991 is still listed on the HDI?!
> Delusional, they're 49th or something on the Human Development Index.
But Tetris?
>Posts legitimate statistics used by governments, corporations and academic experts.
>Not good enough for Sup Forums.
Mhm... how about no.
>Putin isn't a Soviet dictator.
Okay, whatever.
Not even that, I live in the UK and I have to pay £3-5 for an hour of shite wifi on the train to work.
Nips still use fax machines and flip phones.
Sup Forums.co.uk
Remainder we made Linux
>>Putin isn't a Soviet dictator.
>Okay, whatever.
That's some intellectual vigor, there.
Don't mind me... I'll... just...
>*Annexes Crimea*
The thing about Japan is that they don't replace all their old tech unless it needs replacing.
That means there is a lot of old (faithful) shit working alongside modern shit. So the question is if you count upgrading all your systems as being technologically advanced.
If you go to the ticket window at a station you'll probably see computers from the late 80s or early 90s, but are they ever not working? Nope.
Almost all the ticket machines look more than a decade old and I have never seen one with a sign saying it's not working.
User experience is a big thing for the Japanese, so they won't rush out and install these flashy new systems that crash every other day.
Switzerland, Ireland...
Hm... It's almost like being a corporate/tax haven entices big foreign companies to park their patents there.
ranked by what objective metric
>Delusional, they're 49th or something on the Human Development Index.
What does that have to do with technological advancement?
You're saying it like that is a bad thing...
>America #1.
>Can't even read a post on Sup Forums.
"The Global Innovation Index ranking is based on seven categories: Research, Infrastructure, Institutions, Markets and Business Sophistication, and Commitment to Knowledge and Creativity."
Okay, see where they're ranked on the Global Innovation Index.
>Okay, see where they're ranked on the Global Innovation Index.
Yeah, also brings in many things not related to technology.
>Research
>Infrastructure
>Institutions
>Markets and Business Sophistication (networking)
>Commitment to Knowledge and Creativity (STEM innovation)
>Nothing to do with STEM!
That really activated my neurons.
Exactly mane
They have to be the most advanced
They hacked the election AND we can't find any evidence of the election being hacked
Crazy mane
>those are the only things!
They're not.
>be at the forefront of nearly every conceivable branch of science and technology
>thinks we give a shit about defending ourselves to some butthurt 3rd world ignoramus
thanks brainlet
So, research and development into STEM, has nothing to do with STEM?
Infrastructure utilising STEM, has nothing to do with STEM?
Institutions researching and utilising STEM, have nothing to do with STEM?
Markets and businesses selling and utilising STEM, has nothing to do with STEM?
Businessnes researching and developing STEM, has nothing to do with STEM?
Commitment to knowledge and creativity in STEM, has nothing to do with STEM?
>American education.
Mhm...
Oh, so you're from China?
Nice to meet you, Ping Pong.
The United States ISN'T the greatest country in the world, sorry faggot.
Do you have any facts, or just MUH PATRIOTISM?
>Oh, so you're from China?
Holy shit I actually laughed out loud. How does one become this retarded?
>its totally just all the STEM related aspects of those things!
Are you for real?
>What is sarcasm?
Eat this:
en.wikipedia.org
>When in doubt, use semantics!
>when semantics make a difference, use semantics!
what objective metric
Yeah, but they still pale in comparison to the US.
Guess what buddy?
I knew you'd do this, so I'm about to CRUSH you...
Ready?
>*Raises verbal fist*
>Innovation
>This is accomplished through more-effective products, processes, services, technologies, or business models that are readily available to markets, governments and society.
Heh... nothing personal, kid.
Read the thread you piece of shit, you're hardly worth anything.
Based PURE Anglos are the best.
>being racist on the internet
Blame them for going with XP instead of an actually Free OS.
maybe we got something else up our sleeve