HALE is a better indicator, as it include health:
https://data.who.int/indicators/i/48D9B0C/C64284D
On average, USians live 13 year after they are considered "non-healthy". French, Spaniards, Italians live only 10 years after being considered "non-healthy) *this include demention and/or autonomy loss obviously), but live 4 more years total.
> USians
Wat.
Central North Americans.
As used by, say, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41344607 and other https://hn.algolia.com/?query=USians&sort=byDate&type=commen...
> Central North Americans
Got it, we're all playing Gulf of America now.
Sure, if by 'now' you mean since the 1980s on Usenet at least . . .
(I've been a regular user for decades, it's common enough outside the English as a primary language North North American bubble .. it's interesting seeing it make inroads on HN in the past few years)
FWiW the @tptacek usage I linked was from five months ago, prior to that little USofA parochial renaming fit .. although it does highlight that everyone about the "Gulf of Mexico (Gulf of America)" is, indeed, an American and it makes sense to differentiate them by country.
> the @tptacek usage I linked was from five months ago
That was clearly sarcastic use of the term.
> it makes sense to differentiate them by country
It strikes me as more a way to signal bias / a particular online group membership, sort of like that group that likes to capitalise random words, in a way that generally undermines credibility about anything geopolitical, but I suppose I appreciate that signal.
> That was clearly sarcastic use of the term.
That predates the recent Yawning Gulf of America hoorah .. there are references going back to at least the 1980s online, and prominent USofA people of letters commenting on the laziness of using "Americans" back into the 1800s.
> It strikes me as more a way
Sure. A number of english speakers in the USofA do seem to feel that way. It's common practice for humans to make such things all about them.
> likes to capitalise random words,
The United States is a pairing of random words now? C'mon, you chaps haven't yet screwed the pooch that badly ... yet.
> but I suppose I appreciate that signal.
Back in the day, when I first encountered its regular usage, it was in international geodesy groups with a good number of people zeroing in the large numbers of traditional ellipsoid datum pairs to the new WGS84 reference standard.
It was less about signalling exclusion from the kids under the Canadian hat and more about precision of reference, particularly in a group that had many ESL members a good many of whom counted continents differently to the trad Western standard and had varying rules for indicating Asians, Europeans, Americans, etc. from citizens of specific countries.
You know, global geodesists with credible geopolitical backgrounds different to your own bubble. You can find much of their work in various GIS transform standards.
> in a way that generally undermines credibility
these things are both subjective and reflective. Some find the aggressive, passive or otherwise, projection of blinkered world views to undermine credibility.
I mean, I guess? I definitely think it's silly. But I didn't think of it as a loaded term when I used it, just a message-board-ism. It wasn't an ironic commentary. :)
(This is a very weird thread to have stumbled on by following your comments).
By the power vested in me by being mentioned in the third person on this thread I hereby decree that "US-ians" is a cromulent term. May God have mercy on your souls.
Damn USian English.
I just wanted to differentiate people in the US from people in Canada, sorry :/