It's been more than a decade since I have read it, but I remember Diamond writing specifically about the relative lack of domesticable animals in sub-Saharan Africa. Mali, Songhai, and Oyo didn't "[adapt] horses to tropical conditions", they imported already domesticated animals from elsewhere (North Africa). It is telling that none of your examples are in Central or Southern Africa.
Also, domestication is the process of breeding animals over multiple generations to make them more pliable and is not the same as training individual animals to pull a carriage. The very first sentence of the paragraph that you quoted from the Wikipedia article on zebras is "Attempts to domesticate zebras were largely unsuccessful."
Go take a look at where Kenya is located on a map and where Donkey's were first domesticated and tell me that I didn't cover sub-Saharan africa again with a straight face.
That first sentence "attempts were largely unsuccessful" is a cope from wikipedia editors who are mad that it keeps being brought up by race realists who are using this blurb to justify their own racism. Consider that it was a literal Rothschild who did the most recent almost-domestication. 4chan is on this like fly's are on horses (but not Zebra's, or horses painted like Zebras - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-22333-7)
The part I quoted without the unnecessary pre-thinking done with that first sentence is all I need. It was quite possible to get most of the way there over short periods of time with money and effort.
> With similar concerns in mind, we also decided to limit the tank size to 20 gallons, as the grow-bed above also contains an additional ~10 gallons of water. Since a gallon of fresh water weighs roughly 8.34lbs, we estimate this puts the entire weight of the system’s water somewhere between 170 and 250lbs. Considering the weight threshold of the industrial shelving, and given that we live on a high floor in our building, we decided to constrain the system to this size to minimize the flooding risk.
OP's alt text makes it clear that by "Galapagos Island" they mean Vancouver. I assumed that this was some sort of local nickname, but all of the references to "Galápagos of Canada" I could find are talking about Haida Gwaii instead.
Realizing he's just using it to mean remote place in terms of AI bubble (Vancouver! What does that make all the other places that are not major tech hubs?) was a bummer.
Who cares about AI, I wanted to read about living in Galapagos
I'm saddened to have gotten this far and had my bubble burst, I legitimately thought someone was on the real GI's and was able to compose such a treatise, nevertheless.
Its more that I had hoped that someone with clear AI psychosis was in the right place for them to step back from that precipice and that we might all learn something valuable from observing it.
This is a good story, but you can read both the Treaty of Ghent (which ended the War of 1812 while keeping the US-Canada border the same) and Rush-Bagot (which restricted naval fleets on the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain). Neither document states anything about the border needing to remain open or without barriers.
The podcast's transcript suggests that their source for this is https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/peace-arch-u.... The person confidently claiming that any closure of the park would result in catastrophe is an immigration lawyer, not a historian:
"Saunders said the treaty stipulates there could not be any boundaries or physical barriers erected on the northern border of the U.S. — and if either side violated that treaty — the boundaries revert back to pre-treaty."
Since the Treaty of Ghent restored the pre-War of 1812 borders of both the United States and Canada, this doesn't make any sense. Canadian historian C. P. Stacey states that the period after the War of 1812 actually saw more border fortification than the years before (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1840618).
I mentioned that the idea that a 19th century treaty keeps the US-Canada border demilitarized was a good story, but I think the truth is an even better one: that the border is demilitarized because both countries know that they can trust their neighbor. Let's hope it stays that way.
This initiative isn't about maintaining a certain population density, it's about restricting immigration and separating Switzerland from the European Union.
A lot of people have reached a point where asylum and family reunification aren't high priorities anymore. Over the past 30 years, developed nations have helped 1.5 Billion people get out of extreme poverty. That's huge! But, now many would like to give those people the tools to build their own infrastructure, education systems, health care systems, economies, etc.
While I agree with you that this blog post (and the "carrot disclosure" described in it) is ill-considered, the pull request is not really "new code", it adds quotes to HTML attributes that are missing them. I think it's entirely reasonable for a contributor to assume that a new test case would not be needed for this small change, and that the maintainer's response ("So a simple question: is this code covered under a test? If not, you will have to add one.") is more abrasive than necessary.
> World Was 2, they uncritically accepted Walter Durranty letting Stalin ghostwrite for him, specifically w.r.t. Stalin's man-made famine in Ukraine, because America was allied with Stalin.
Duranty's New York Times articles were written in 1931, a decade before America entered World War II. They not only predate an American alliance with the Soviet Union, but they also predate the United States having any diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union whatsoever.
> Go back through the major wars in American history and you can find the New York Times championing the cause of war before each of these.
Are there other major American newspapers who have a history of dissenting against war? Wasn't the New York Times' behavior in most of the conflicts you mention in line with American popular opinion?
> Wasn't the New York Times' behavior in most of the conflicts you mention in line with American popular opinion?
Dear god, what? I love the unintentional satire its so funny. "Its fine if the media lies to the people if the people believe the lies." That's low even for this stemlord dumpsterfire of a platform
> "Its fine if the media lies to the people if the people believe the lies."
That is low, but that's neither a direct quote or not an accurate paraphrase of my comment. While I realize that the comment I replied was edited after my response to talk about lying in more recent conflicts (which might be causing your confusion), I don't think you (like OP) are trying to make the argument that the New York Times is bad because of their reporting in the 1930s.
The American political apparatus was already normalizing relations with the Soviet Union due to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1931, which is when WW2 truly started), due to the great depression in America making alliance with the Soviets look economically advantageous for America, and due to political instability in Germany and Italy. There was a strong sense of shit hitting the fan soon and that America would be with the Soviet Union through it. FDR officially recognized the Soviet Union in 1933, during the peak of Stalin's famine in Ukraine, which the New York Times was actively denying.
As for other newspapers, the Times isn't worse but bears the brunt of the criticism because they are after all America's foremost, most influential newspaper.
Your comment is full of historical revisionism. The Second World War has little or nothing to do with the Holodomor. The Times' lack of reporting on it has nothing to do with American foreign policy (both Duranty and Gareth Jones were British) and everything to do with credulous reporters. The idea that America and the Soviet Union would be natural allies was not the majority viewpoint in the 1930s (outside of American communist propaganda) and is clearly disproved by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
Also, domestication is the process of breeding animals over multiple generations to make them more pliable and is not the same as training individual animals to pull a carriage. The very first sentence of the paragraph that you quoted from the Wikipedia article on zebras is "Attempts to domesticate zebras were largely unsuccessful."
reply