JayDee

I heard that a possible explanation of currency was blood feuds. Basically, if some extreme wrong was done on one family by another, instead of having a big conflict over it, the mediating government would give the wronged family a 'proof of wronging' that was legal tender. The generic value of that proof was either to represent a unit of flesh if the debt was not paid, or an amount of a specific valued-but-common good, but which could be sufficed with other goods in negotiations (some goods that were suggested were a pound of grains or a number of wolf pelts). I don't know how accepted that idea is, but it sure beats the old-and-cliche barter system idea.

Video that introduced me to this hypothesis.

Very good first sentence to learn.

Gotta make sure it's visible from the street so everyone can see it.

That design goes so fucking hard.

Let me introduce you to the racist motive

The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and Black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

• John Ehrlichman, President Nixon's Domestic Policy Cheif. (Harper's Magazine)

e/os, for the fairphone 4 at least, is based on lineageOS.

Not so. There are those that believe objectivism is the true way of viewing the world. They view that we are on the way to understanding the universe as it truly is, that human perception will not pose an obstacle to that pursuit, and that there will eventually be one true method of viewing the universe in its entirety that is yet to be discovered. Constructivist beliefs directly oppose that idea, since all science is a man-made construct that can only approximate reality in their view. Constructivism also, then, leaves room for multiple theories coexisting because they provide better utility and insights in different circumstances. In the example of Einstein's Relativity vs Newton's Physics, we are talking about an older theory and the theory which usurped it because it was more accurate, and the general expectation is that another theory will be accepted down the line which will be better than both. That expectation is fairly objectivist, since it assumes there is a true model which we just haven't discovered yet. Constructivism does not make that assumption, since the universe likely does not fit neatly into our constructions in its image.

The other thing, is that constructivism challenges scientific realism to some extent, in that it challenges the existence of many things which we cannot directly observe, such as quarks, proteins, particles, etc... because "how can we actually confirm these things exist, when we physically can't observe them, and the things we're using to show their existence are constructs made up by us?"

This topic is still very much in a state of debate that has very strong implications around the philosophy of how science works and how it should be conducted. That's also just talking about constructivism's implications in the physical sciences. Things get much hairier when you start looking at the social sciences, where biases and perception are extremely influential on what we discover. Constructivism directly challenges the attainability of scientific objectivity, which has serious implications across all fields of science.

That's fair. Language changed for accuracy.

This guy should learn to view science more like a constructivist. Pretty much everything in science is just something we made up that mostly aligns with the natural world, and just because one model is less accurate than another does not mean it's no longer useful.

We didn't abandon Newtonion physics when Einstein's model was accepted for instance, since Newtonian physics is still very useful, and much easier to use compared to others.

Edit: changed language from 'proven' to 'accepted'.

Hmm. The Wikipedia page is missing any mention of the nickname, but this military history fandom wiki has that nickname clearly documented, and it shows up again in a politico article.

Can't immediately tell if this is a failure of Wikipedia's documentation practices or a 'fact' that's been made up by less secure channels.

Really wish we could turn back the clock to when specialized webpages talking about a certain subject were in abundance.

Geneticists are like AI devs IMO. Sitting on the cutting edge of human capabilities, hoping to make the world a better place, while careening humanity into an even worse dystopia.

Minecraft. Star Fox 64. Pokemon Stadium.