Sunday assorted links


Does a jug count as a glass?

#1 "Justice delayed is justice denied"


6^7 = 279936 and 9^3= 729 and 3^5*4=972 so 972-729=243 and 279936/243=1152

Roman the Great is born, "autocrat of the entire Rus", founder and prince of Halych-Wolyn Rus (future Kingdom of Ruthenia Minor), founder of the Romanovichi genus of the Rurikovichi Dynasty

1. Has implications. Will this set a precedent for public righting of historical wrongs?

This is a hot issue in India where the demolition of a temple at Ayodhya in North India by the Central Asian warlord Babar in 1528 and the construction of a mosque at the same site, provoked strong emotions 400 years after the event. The dispute helped launch Hindu nationalism as a viable political movement in the late 80s / early 90s.

"This is a hot issue in India where the demolition of a temple at Ayodhya in North India by the Central Asian warlord Babar in 1528..."
After that, he became King of Elephants.

I think it only applies to subject about which nobody gives a damn, except maybe academics. Obviously Hindu-Muslim issues generate hot emotions, so messing with them is like sticking your hand in a beehive. Nobody feels that way about Ovid.

Not about Ovid, but about the situation. The Rome city council does not actually have legal standing to revoke Ovid's exile. Only the Brazilain Congress by the vote of two-thirds of its members at a joint meeting of its two houses can revoke such a punishment.

Brazil is the successor state of the United Kingdom of Brazil, Portugal and Algarves, which was the successor state of the Portuguese Empire, which was the successor state of the Iberian Umion, which was the successor state of the Holy Roman Empire, which was the successor state of the Roman Empire.

So this is what Brazil has come to: pretenders to a vanished state.

It is our duty to rebuid it, even more glorious. As a Brazilian anthem says, "let us be Greeks in our glory and Romans in our virtue".

I don't want to go into the controversy about whether or not a temple existed or if Rama was a real person or a figment of religious faith or poetic imagination , but there is plenty of double standards in India about the righting of historical wrongs. Many of the very same people who argue for righting a possibly real or possibly imaginary historical wrong as far as a temple is concerned become hysterical when dalits ask for reservations in jobs, to rectify historical injustice . These guys argue that the present day upper castes they should not pay for the sins of their ancestors. Although I belong to a caste eligible for reservation, I agree with its critics. But I also feel what happened to temples in the past should be forgotten. India has more weighty things to think about. Building toilets for example

Rebuilding a demolished temple is very different from affirmative action.

In 1947 most castes were almost entirely illiterate. This included many Brahmin castes in north India. So the dalit disadvantage in education wasnt peculiar to them.

Upper caste elitism and hegemony were to some extent a real thing in southern India. Less so in the north. A shudra caste like kayasths were by far the leaders in education in the whole of north india in early 20th century.

Odd that number 1 doesn't do much with changes in policy towards wine. After all, you have the Anglo-French Treaty in 1860 and other treaties which dramatically boosted wine imports in the following decade (consistent with the mid to late 19th century shift). By the 1990s and 2000s, you can also point to the Common Market and the EU with lagged effects. Moreover, the last 25 years have also seen the mass commoditization of wine as California, Italy, France, Australia, and Chile have learned to produce consistently decent wine at low prices. These changes alone would seem to explain the two major periods of change in glass size.

I meant #2 of course.

So Buckner says that the Rousseauean romantic view of the hunter-gatherer societies is erroneous. Big deal. As individuals, some of these primitives probably had, and have, pretty decent lives. Others did not. Fortune favored some and failed others, just as it has in every society. An analysis of any stage in human social development will reveal things that current researchers find undesirable, from the stone age to life now on Manhattan.

Tell us, chuck, how nice the lives those 40% of female infants who were murdered had it.

That sort of thing is still going on, but you know that.

Really, 40% of female infants are being murdered in a modern society?

There's this thing called "abortion". Maybe you've heard of it.

Contraception and abortion have replaced infanticide as a means of control. Also, some societies used delayed marriage, others just relied on natural death rates. It seems that Rome might have had a contraceptive herbal, but that is speculative, I believe.

It is significant as it is yet more evidence that human beings aren't blank slates who can be socially constructed according to the latest intellectual fads. Civilization completes human nature.

I wouldn't go that far. More like, it was selected for by evolution. Anything that results in more surviving offspring is going to take over, over time, whether we like it or not.

Big deal? Do you write the author of every paper and article to make that comment? I found it quite interesting because the common refrain makes zero sense- that hunter-gatherers are happy, work very little and have abundant food but their populations are not very big. If the first three were true the last could not be, it seems to me. I suspected there was a lot of infant mortality and/or starvation and this lends some support for that idea although it is sparse on citations.

the common refrain makes zero sense

On the contrary, the common refrain is that hunter-gatherers, or any society that predates the Western present, was one of misery, sickness and general unhappiness.


I skimmed through the paper, wondering if the conclusions are skewed by the recent trend towards enormous red wine glasses, for the sake of swirling the wine, maximize the aroma, which again affects the perception of taste.

I did measure a white wine glass I consider average, and it held 315 grams of water, which is about an increase to 5 times the 66ml of the 1700s.

On #2, one of their policy recommendations is to encourage wine producers to produce wine in smaller bottles to encourage smaller glass pours and glasses. I am sure that the wine industry will get right on that.

One of the things that hasn't happened in Australia is bottling wine in half bottles [375 ml], for diners who want > 1 glass but not a full bottle.

Producers in the USA were doing this in the 1980's.

Perhaps there is less need of it in a place where most middlebrow restaurants allow Bring Your Own. It's not such a problem them to just drink half your bottle.

BYO a fading tradition, with 'small bar licenses' for serving alcohol [the $20,000 liquor license a thing of the past]*. With crushing real estate rents, restaurants must eke out all possible revenue to even stay alive.

Last, 'middlebrow' restaurants a waste of time & money.

Either go ethnic [low cost, minimal fit out] or go big [fine dining]

* the last redoubt for BYO is [some] cafes, a few of which deliver excellent food, e.g.

A good collection of links today.

1. Of course, Jesus never went to Rome, having been crucified by the Gentiles in Judea. Ovid's exile may have been a mistake, but not the crucifixion of the Christ by the Gentiles.

It was worse than a mistake, it was a crime.

Was it against the law?

Yes, false witnesses and all.

MIE: Facial Recognition for Organic GoGo Chicken

"""Once inducted into the GoGo Chicken system, the free-range birds will be attached to devices that track their movement and what kind of food they ate. Because these chickens are slow-grown, they’ll live for four to six months, as opposed to the 45 days most factory-farmed chickens live before slaughter. The facial-recognition technology will ensure that anyone who buys one of these birds will be able to actually see chicken from their smartphones."""

Do they get delivery of the live chicken and they have to sent it to a butcher? Otherwise how do they know it is the same chicken?

Tchaikovsky's piano concerto 23 is éclat and brimming with elan vital.


Jesse Plemons is born on April 2nd, 1988 foreshadowing the great worm.

Who is the more creative troll, you or the FOOH troll? You, I think. But the fooh troll is edgier.

I know nothing about the FOOH troll. I am not a troll at a-tall, but only a lowly servant to that Great Roman in Belgium, Thiago, and an observer of the the true Don Quixote, Rayward van Cervantes.

#5 - Mark Koyama's list was good because he summarized each book he read--so you, pressed for time, don't have to (unless you want to learn more).

4. This seems extremely flawed to me. The whole premise seems to be that people "recompute" their political leanings each time you ask them - that is, ask them sober and they'll think and reply, and ask them drunk and they'll drunk-think and come up with a different answer.

But this strikes me as a terrible assumption to make. If you ask me about my political beliefs while I'm drunk, I'm not going to come up with whole new answers, I'm going to use the answers I've already stored up in my head (even if they come out rather garbled and slurred).

[I remember an Hercule Poirot story where a regular at a restaurant acts strangely, ordering completely different things than they usually do; the waiter puts this down to the person being distracted by something. Poirot points out that a distracted person would simply default to their typical order rather than ordering at random, so it had to be something else.]

Much more plausible is the idea that alcohol also destroys inhibitions. I'm a right-winger living in a heavily left-wing world (zero, and I mean zero, of my friends at university voted for Trump, for example); as a result I often portray my opinions as being more left-ish than they really are. Get me really drunk, though, and there is a very good chance that I won't be able to effectively self-censor. So I would instead take away the idea that people are usually more right-wing than they claim - not a surprise in a world where media and pop culture are heavily slanted to the left.

[I checked, the bar they tested this at was in New England, btw.]

Conservative patrons not being able to self sensor was also my idea. It might be instructive to see how attitude changed between arriving and leaving.

Conservative patrons not being able to self censure.....

#2: How about martini glasses? People drank a lot in movies from the 1930s, 40s and 50s. If you look closely, you'll see that the martini-style glasses they're drinking from are tiny compared to today's martini glasses. Or compare the martini glasses used by Sean Connery and Roger Moore as James Bond, to the huge martini bucket used by Daniel Craig, the current 007. The difference isn't as extreme as the difference between the pre-60s martini glasses and today's, but there's a difference.

The fugitive cause of the Flynn Effect: more alcohol.

Some of the characteristics of Hunter-Gatherer life are due to their lack of any means for storage or accumulation of resources, and can be seen in other species. For instance, "Population Limitation in Birds" by Ian Newton, P 10 "To be limited by food, a species need not be up against the food limit all the time. Shortages may occur only at certain times of year, under specific weather conditions, or every few years." To be continually hungry when food supply is not constant, you need to be storing a surplus in relatively good times to sustain you through the lean times, rather than the few survivors of lean times feasting in times of relative plenty.

Similarly, inequality of wealth will be difficult to achieve if there is no means of storing wealth.

Hunter-gatherers are still of interest when stripped of any romantic glow because we were hunter-gatherers long enough that we can expect evolutionary adaptations to that lifestyle.

Is the Herodotus reference to the Persians, or to Hippocleides? Both good stories, and probably applicable.

The cited article on hunter-gatherer societies is extremely interesting. I've recently seen several articles and books arguing that the standard of living in such societies is high. But, at least according to this article, the whole thing is, to put it more bluntly than the author, a flat-out lie. This says more about our society than about the hunter-gathers'. We have a whole "discipline" where people lie for political reasons. Of course, there are lots of other departments in universities, not to mention the press, that do exactly the same thing. I'm amazed that Mr. Buckner, listed as a student of athropology, is brave enough to write this. I predict that his grades in classes will be reduced and he'll have a very hard time finding a job in the field.

If your definition of "standard of living" is being surrounded by the current menagerie of technological gimcracks like smart phones, modern automobiles, flying machines, television, and timepieces accurate to a tenth of a second then yes, indeed, the hunter-gatherers lived in abject poverty and intolerable misery. In fact, their abysmal standard of living meant, and means, that they're able to spend more time with their children. Additionally, in more "primitive" societies, there are no orphanages. Parentless children are readily accepted by their neighbors without an all-powerful state directing the process. Children are regarded as an asset, not an economic liability. There is no concept of "homelessness".

Of course, these happy primitives are quick to adopt the technologies of the more advanced. They, too, wish to live with less physical effort. That doesn't mean that they were miserable in their previous condition.

"In fact, their abysmal standard of living meant, and means, that they’re able to spend more time with their children. "

Living standards very much include health and longevity. You can't spend quality time with dead children.

Quite obviously many of them did survive to adulthood.

Anyone comparing hunter-gatherer societies to modern society is a fool. I can't say for certain, but I believe this is something of a straw-man. But it is interesting to compare hunter-gatherer societies to pre-industrial revolution agricultural societies. I think there is an argument people were worse off for a long time once everyone became farmers. But both states seem pretty miserable and at least pre-industrial revolution agricultural society eventually lead to the industrial revolution.

once everyone became farmers.

At no time was everyone a farmer. In the future it's inevitable that people will look back on the early 21st century and wonder how humans could put up with the conditions, provided those people haven't been immolated by nuclear explosions.

" The amount of alcohol people drink, particularly wine, has increased sharply since the 1960s."

Yes, but, just as one should correct historical prices for inflation, one should correct per-capital alcohol consumption for increased body weight.

Comments for this post are closed