Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "Metatron"
channel.
-
114
-
110
-
81
-
54
-
51
-
Complex language requires being able to encode information into a sensory medium with a high "bandwidth" and keeping that information in a specific order.
Due to the way smells work, this makes a poor medium for this. Despite what hive insects like bees are able to achieve with it, they're limited to a specific set of information they can communicate. They do, however, make decent mediums for information sets that change on evolutionary timescales, such as emotions.
Visual might seem like a good way to go, but it tends to be expensive (bio-luminescence or lots of movement) and often ties up important body parts when it's even capable of being fast enough. It will most likely be a 2ndary channel for information, much like how we use body language, but it's limitations get in the way of evolving as a primary medium for complex language. (though, unlike smell, it is possible, as we can see with sign language)
Really, auditory, especially vocal, is the way to go, and convergent evolution will drive species towards it. That said, auditory ranges being incompatible could be a trial to overcome, though not insurmountable with some very basic technology.
The big questions are:
How does one attempt to teach one's own language to an alien? (they'll likely be trying to do the same with us anyway)
How does one comprehend an alien mind?
Think about taking a magic universal translator and sticking a hunter from the stone age, smith from 700AD England, noble from 1700AD France, farmer from 2000AD Congo, tax collector from 1300AD China, warrior from 1000BC Greece, fisher from 900AD Mexico slave from 100BC Rome, priest from 2000BC Egypt, monk from 1500AD Japan, and yourself in a room and try to have everyone just get along. Now realize that this is just the tutorial level because you're all the same species (using the same brains), from the same planet, all from within a few thousand years of each other, and most of you have some knowledge of at least 1 or 2 of the others.
Now remove those advantages, have several billion voices clamoring behind them, arm everyone, and try to negotiate and cooperate without killing each other.
39
-
36
-
28
-
25
-
20
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
WarblesOnALot actually, that's (sadly) only the cover story. The reality is that old news media (who was feeling the heat of competition from YouTube news channels who weren't bought off) scoured the site to find one hateful video that had an ad on it which slipped through YouTube's previously existing filter system and jumped on it to try and get YouTube to crack down on content.
A selection of large companies (such as Walmart and several predatory banks) joined in step immediately to boycott YouTube. Their motivation is that they were used to their advertising dollars buying bias, and the rise of people turning outside of TV news with said bias was leading to a wave of public opinion that threatens their goals.
To give a couple specifics, Walmart really likes their suppliers to outsource their products, so they were hugely in favor of the planned TPP trade deal. While Trump may have latched onto it in his campaign, the original push-back against it came from the internet latching onto something that was supposed to happen quietly and spreading around how terrible it was. The banks, on the other hand, have had a nice long streak from Bill Clinton, to Bush, to Obama, to Hillary/Trump of presidents that would happily play ball and let them continue to screw over people more. Then Bernie (who's campaign was largely driven by the grass roots on the internet) came along and threatened that con-game and they were NOT happy about that.
Of course, the mainstream media instantly piled on this, because of their ever shrinking credibly and viewer base. Meanwhile, youtube works with them to roll out TV news channels, and eventually "youtube tv" shortly thereafter (at a time-period which suggests they started this plan immediately after the first corporations started the boycott). To top things off, the same "news" corporations are really just huge media conglomerates who make money on non-news content, and so are perfectly happy to see other good content get hit, even if it's not political.
To give an example relevant to this channel (beyond just time spent watching youtube competes with time watching TV), General Electric may have gotten into the game because of MSNBC (which they own) but, among other companies they hold, they also own The "History" channel, which is directly threatened by channels like this that make actually historically accurate content that people want to watch (& for far lower production costs than their BS shows).
I could give more specifics if you want, but this is wall of text already long enough.
10
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
As Timur mentioned, we know because we can see it in their bones from evidence of disease to stunted growth. Fact is that, for all the flaws of the modern diet, most of us eat far, far better than people in medieval times. This whole thing where we have generations that don't understand what it means for there to not be enough food to go around and it to be totally out of anyone's control dispite their best efforts is remarkably new.
On a good year, sure, great food, but between frequent bad years and a lack of understanding of nutrition, consistently maintaining that good diet long enough to reach the full potential of your adult peak would be difficult.
Is it overblown in a lot of depictions? Absolutely, but yes, they were generally sub-optimally fed.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+Havoc Blitzkrieg No, that's a perfectly sound strategy. The infantry tanks were designed to stick with the infantry and protect them from heavy armor. They were also the ones supposed to clear the heavy tanks of the enemy from an area and start the punch-through of an enemy line, assisted by the infantry (who would provide the extra machine-gun fire). Since this job didn't require much mobility, they could also afford heavier guns and armor using the same engine, which left most of them at a pretty slow 15mph.
Cruiser tanks were then supposed to rush through the hole they created and destroy the relatively soft and squishy rear lines, cutting off logistic support to the main line. For that kind of job, a smaller gun with a higher rate of fire is better. They also save weight on the gun (and the armor) which helps add to their speed. Of course, since they're now moving way too fast for the infantry to keep up with, throwing an extra machine gun or 2 on them makes a lot of sense.
Also, once they switched over to the 6lber gun, they were more than capable of taking out medium tanks they were put up against, and could take out heavy tanks as long as they weren't facing them head on. It's not the best anti-tank gun, but it's fit for purpose and slower reload times on larger guns can easily be fatal with light armor.
3