By a truly unbelievable coincidence, I was recently out for a walk when I saw a small package fall off a truck ahead of me. … Inside, we found the latest versions of the Cellebrite software, a hardware dongle designed to prevent piracy (tells you something about their customers I guess!), and a bizarrely large number of cable adapters.
I guess it makes sense signal works with the mafia
1 and 2 I think have pretty good consensus. The Bering land bridge opened about 10,000 years ago while the Polynesians didn’t reach Hawaii until 900 ad, so if they got to South America it was probably after that. There is some speculation that some separate group of people crossed over even before them since evidence shows that the south American coast became populated very quickly after the Bering bridge opened. Like they got to South America before they got to the interior of north America. That could be because the Rockies are large and without the fish that those people were probably eating, or it could be that some very early people, millennium before the Polynesians domesticated coconuts, made the crossing. That theory of very far in the realm of speculation but it’s a fun theory.
According to wikipedia this is the less likely and imo less interesting explanation. They did find coconuts that are genetically distinct from the ones the Spanish brought over from the Philippines, but those ones are more distantly related to the ones in polynesia so they probably didn’t float over. Instead they are more likely evidence of pre-columbian contact of Polynesians with south and central America, along with sweet potatoes originating in South America but being present in polynesia and SEA prior to columbus.
So this would boot Columbus off the podium in people who discovered America.
Bering strait people / native American ancestors
Polynesian people
Vikings, Leif Erickson
Columbus
The author seems to focus a lot on the idea Marx was a degrowther, which yeah probably isn’t true but just starts to sound more like ecclesiastical arguments on what Jesus really meant as opposed to talking about the actual issue at hand.
There rebuttal mostly seems to be a techno-optimist view that a lot of pro-growth Marxists have but doesn’t address the consumerist lifestyle of people in the west. The current growth of the economy powered by western consumers driving their cars to Walmart to buy cheap plastic stuff made by exploited workers from the global south that will end up in a landfill in a year probably shouldn’t be a thing both ecologically and socially.
The truth is if there was true global socialism a lot of the consumerist western lifestyle will probably go away as workers from the global south will refuse to produce that stuff or produce it at such a cost to westerners that they won’t want it. Denying this will only lead to tension post revolution.
We should instead focus on the positives of de-growth, that is less work. Yeah, you may not be able to buy that new pair of shoes every other month, but you’ll only work 10 hours a week.
Conifers aren’t trees by this definition. It seems to completely ignore gymnosperms and even misclassified a couple as dicots like sequoias and junipers.
We need to stop looking for a scientifically coherent category for a tree and ,like fish, embrace the true, intuitive, childlike definition of it as just a form, a trunk with leaves at the top.