Most Livable Cities

Then again, high rent can be correlated with desirability. Not easy to separate those two factors.

I don't see how San Francisco could be the most "livable" American city when there are so many nicer ones all over the country. It's insanely expensive, property crime is off the charts, the streets are filthy. I used to visit there quite often but it's not as much fun anymore.

New Zealand (?) and Australia.

I suppose it's a step up from 2001's winner which was calling someone "butthurt." ::shudder::

Penguins aren't native to the northern hemisphere...

Turks aren't indigenous to Germany, either, but that doesn't mean you can't find some who would want to live there.

Turks are humans and penguins are animals. I haven't heard of penguins wanting to leave the Southern Hemisphere.

Given the caliber of individual who feel the urge to respond to some of my comments on this website I feel like Quizmaster's prohibition on ad hominem attacks is draconian, onerous, and unreasonable.

bkemp2001 literally said "American cities". Canada is not a part of the US.

Not sure what your criteria are for fact-based reporting, but there's something very wrong with them, judging by the end result in your first comment.

Speaking as someone regularly travelling all over Europe and having male and female friends living in many places in Germany and elsewhere ...

You watch Fox News?

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Please be a bit more precise with your objection. Is it aiming on Tokyo/Seoul or the general conclusion? As said, I have never been in Tokyo/Seoul. I might be wrong on the possible level of recreation in those cities.

Yes you're totally wrong about that and I'm puzzled as to why you would even think to draw a conclusion based on photos. What photos? Tokyo and Seoul are two of the most vibrant cities I've ever visited or lived in with plenty of things to see and do. What entertainment do you think Munich has that Tokyo lacks? Oktoberfest? People in Seoul go out drinking all night, every night, if that's what you fancy. If anything these cities have much more to offer in terms of entertainment venues and options than your average European city does.

The Mercer rankings have 39 factors grouped into 10 categories. The 7th category is "Recreation" and includes "restaurants, theaters, cinemas, sports and leisure, etc." As for restaurants, Tokyo restaurants have 304 Michelin stars, blowing away the closest European city (Paris, with 134). Munich has fewer than 20. Tokyo and Seoul both have great, world class cinemas. Most European cities have nothing that compares.

Could go on at length but don't want to leave a dozen comments. Just... you're definitely wrong. Try visiting some time and see for yourself.

First of all, I used "recreation" in a broader context, in particular with respect to "recreation in nature". You are right that Mercer does not list this a separate category but it is partially included in "4. Air pollution", "7. Sport and leisure", and proabably also in "7. (recreation) etc.". "Recreation in nature" highly correlates with the amount of trees you can find on a photo. Shinjuku Central Park in Tokyo or Hyde Park in London are nice for a short walk after your job but it is not recommended for week-end recreation like hiking tours, bike tours, relaxing at a lake (at least not for 5mio people simultaneously)...For many European cities on this list you can go to rural regions within less than one hour and often even without using a car. Again I highly expect that this is not possible in Tokyo.

Second, who cares about the number of Michelin restaurants? Most people on Earth will never visit even one of those restaurants! And talking about entertainment venues, who cares if there are 2000 or only 200 nice bars in the city? Further, e.g. the theatre/opera density of central Europa is unmatched. Tokyo, NYC, etc. are probably comparable with (small) Vienna, but not beyond.

I should not further judge this until I have visited those cities. Nevertheless, I wonder if we talk from completely different things. Just to make it clear again, I talk about stuff like the amount of trees within a distance of 10km from the city center.

You know approximately about as much on this subject as the average fish so I'm not sure why I even bothered responding.

I wonder what will happen in future when the EU gets converted to the "United States of Europe". Propably everybody will then sloppily call its citizens "the Europeans", annoying the Swiss, the Russians, and maybe even the British and Northern Irish! :-D

And some specialists will explain us: "West Eurasia is a continent, Europe is a country. Zurich is Swiss."

Fish: they actually already do this. I get asked all the time at customs about how much time I've spent "in Europe"... by which they always mean the European Union... I'll start explaining that there are other parts of Europe not in the EU and not in the Schengen Area and their question is inherently stupid but I've learned it's better just to anticipate the fallacy.

Thing is the EU has been around less than 30 years. and referring to the EU as Europe creates confusion as there is a continent by the same name. The popular convention Ander refers to has been near universally understood since before any of us were born, annoying nobody until very recently. The only confusion in creates is feigned, as there is no continent called America. Calling the USA "America" should be as controversial as calling the United States of Mexico "Mexico"... but of course... it isn't. And we all know why though some of us pretend not to.

I confirm that this sloppy nomenclature is commonly convenient also for non-US-Americans (as I do as well). (Although at least in German it is more limited to the US-citizens and associated adjective only. The country is typically called "USA" or "Vereinigte Staaten".) Nevertheless, the sloppy use of this term does not mean it is correct. America is first of all a supercontinent such as Eurasia. I see three ways how to think on why US-citizen (and others) persist calling their country "America". 1) They just don't care/think this is indeed unambigous. 2) There is a deep unconsious (or consious) attitude towards a pan-American imperialism (as backed by the past history and present power). 3) There is just no convenient "euphonic" alternative. E.g., "US-Americans" would semantically imply that the "people" of the USA is just a subfaction of the "pan-American people", "literally" constraining the sovereignty of the USA.

America is not a continent to the large majority of people in the world. Your odd use of "America" to represent a supercontinent is not any more correct than the more common "North America" and "South America." Language is a tool to convey meaning. If a word is commonly used to mean something and commonly understood to mean that thing, then that word is an effective component of language. The ONLY reason that Americans, and the vast overwhelming majority of all humans on Earth, call America America is because that's what most people have been using that word to mean since the 19th century. It has zilch to do with imperialism. It's just convention. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that convention. The problems people have with it are manufactured and date back to... about 6 years ago.

The actual term "America" has been created in order to give the continent South America a name. Further, we learned in school that the vikings (re-)discovered "America" (Canada!) as well as that Colombus again re-discovered "America" (Bahamas!). THAT is the convention which all humans on Earth agree on since 500 years. The USA are virtually one of the last country in the Americas which has been considered to be a part of "America". Nevertheless, the majority of humans (including myself) may sloppily use this term not only for the continent but also for USA. But you will find hardly any person outside USA who denies that America is (also) a (super-)continent. At least nobody who visited history or geography lesson.

I've never found one who didn't recognize that America was a country and not a continent and I've worked as an educator on four continents and had conversations on this subject with people in each. (or... 2... I guess... if you only count "super continents")

best comment on this quiz so far!