Only 8% of the US live in cities with more than a million people...so we aren't going to be investing much in smart cities.
Does the development of the city conflict with where people live? What you want to say is that the city does not need to develop? Keeping the steam age or keeping the Stone Age?
一脸懵逼~~
The cost of living offsets those high paying jobs. Market values dictates rents. So by all means, get those high paying jobs just so you can pay rents that doubles or even triples the average American house mortgage payment, then you can brag about 5G in your tiny car size apartment.
^_^~ Why don't you go back to the Stone Age, you can live in the jungle, the whole forest is your bedroom? Haha, you can't live in a big house with 5G, just like saying: hi, don't bother the girl, she May make you spend money to buy a condom this evening...
I have 60 acres of land in my hometown, there are more than 800 square meters of home, 4G, there is a highway, driving to my home in Changsha for about 50 minutes (but I often work in Beijing, so I am miserable) returning to nature is everyone The pursuit, but in order to survive we must choose.
Imagine if I can use the web to access my stored material anywhere and edit the post.
Does this kind of work cost the loss of a big house?
Don't need a smart city? Don't need a faster network? No new technology? A few stupid fools,
starting today, quality of life and technological advancement are to rival each other?