Lol yeah can only imagine what playing ‘hunt the bad device’ would’ve been like back when those boxes had actual fuses on them. (That’s the game where the main circuit breaker gets tripped and you have to figure out first what ring it’s on, and then which specific item is tripping it)
No fuses in the switch box though, it’s a box of circuits breakers
I don’t think 23 is wildly off from 25, and honestly this is just the first one I found that mentions it, I’ve seen various different sources for different reasons in the past. But the average is based on genetic mutations, and obviously in any given human it’s irrelevant how large a generation is as to how much genetic mutation is contributed by the generation. Like even if there are 8 billion people today, that doesn’t imply that you somehow got more generic inheritance from your parents than they did from theirs back when there were 6 billion people or whatever. Judging average to be the average per generation (a reasonable inference given the methodology) the last few years won’t make much of a difference in a timescale of 250k years
I can’t find the article I vaguely remember from a while ago, here’s another random one that has mothers in the bronze age ranging from 16-40ish https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314262257_Bronze_Age_Beginnings_The_Conceptualization_of_Motherhood_in_Prehistoric_Europe although you can’t really infer much about averages from that.
Anyway yeah there have been periods in time when average age of mothers was younger, but generally if you look back on a long timescale it’s been older than people seem to assume. Seems to be quite common to have the notion that women all had children at 16 or whatever back in the day but not much to really bear that out that I can find.
https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/average-age-of-conception-throughout-human-history/151423/ nah it’s pretty much been the average age of mothers for a very very long time indeed
There were moments in its history when it maybe wasn’t as bad as the competition, but it’s not been great of late
This is fine if everyone is decent and righteous, but sadly many people aren’t. There are lots of people who will happily steal, commit arson, kill etc etc. You need some system in place to handle this. You may think some laws bad or absurd, and indeed there have always been some terrible laws, but a system without any laws at all is totally dependent on the benevolence of individual agents. Once a society reaches a certain size, this tends to go a bit awry.
It’s a bit more nuanced than that irl. You may think rule of law is important and appreciate the authority of the courts, for example. Or you may think that someone had to pass the laws and appreciate the authority of the legislature in that regard. Institutions without authority are pointless, but they’re not all inherently authoritarian unless you stretch that adjective to breaking point
Ah, well correct. I appreciate your scholarship
Rust is brilliant for cli tools, which have the benefit you can usually make something useful to scratch an itch without it exploding in scope. Might be a better place to start than yaca…
I looked, and beheld a white horse. And the man that sat on it was death. And hell followed with him.
I could be misremembering that a bit tbf
Lol, most of the axis didn’t even have labels. The reductionism is obviously silly, but presenting the classic 2D model as if that was actually how words are used is genuinely hilarious
Or you appreciate authority in some matters, but reject it in others. That’s the point in the spectrum that rejects the simple binary.
Edit: just realised both my last posts were responding to you. I’m not stalking or weird shit I swear! It just happened I woke up with more opinions!
No, what I’m experiencing is the conventional meaning of the term as used by people in normal language not matching up with a technical definition that you favour. It’s fine that you prefer to use the word that way, you just can’t expect everyone else to
Well you’re not fucking wrong mate
Any assertion in chart form must be true!
Edit: ok now that I’m getting downvotes I feel I need to explain: the conventional usage of the word libertarian is not commensurate with it covering such a wide range of the political spectrum. Usually we mean people who favour mildly anarchistic views (minimal governmental institutions, low taxation, low intervention). Representing that niche as half of the political spectrum is highly disingenuous
But he was the one I was looking for
Yeah that’s clearly Prince
When traveling with a massive hiking rucksack then I confess it has gone on the seat next to me. Only because it won’t fit anywhere else I swear.
Reader mode also works beautifully on mobile for sites that’re otherwise friendly but have a clunky layout on width-constrained windows
Been saying that for years. Same for Muse, although they took after different parts of Radiohead’s ouvre. Never really felt anyone huge corresponded to the Kid A/Amnesiac stuff though. Nobody jumps out there.