Allan Lichtman's "Keys" Are BS (Jonathan V. Last/The Bulwark)
thebulwark.com/p/allan-lichtma…
memeorandum.com/240905/p70#a24…
Frontier’s 3 million users to become Verizon users in latest telco merger
Verizon once sold part of its network to Frontier; now it's buying the company.
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/20…
20 books that have had an impact on who you are. One book a day for 20 days. No explanations, no reviews, just book covers. #20books #20Books20Days #books #bookstodon #tolkien @bookstodon
@fantasy
20/20
reshared this
fantasy group and bookstodon group reshared this.
The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong
The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong
The influential idea that in the past men were hunters and women were not isn’t supported by the available evidenceCara Ocobock (Scientific American)
like this
zeezee likes this.
I can’t believe so many people upvoted this comment. Do they just assume because there are lots of words and you referenced the original paper that this is a good critique? But I guess a lot of people just turn off their brain when they feel cognitive dissonance.
Do you know what a survey is? It’s not meant to be comprehensive, it’s supposed to be representative. Furthermore, it is based on existing ethnographic data, so it’s obviously not going to include data on tribes that are currently uncontacted, because there is little or none. The reasons why are obvious but since you don’t seem to understand, we can spell it out.
Conducting anthropological research on these tribes typically involves going to the tribe and living with, observing, and interviewing them for an extended period to fully understand their culture and way of life. This is not advisable with uncontacted tribes because it is dangerous for researchers and dangerous for the tribe which may lack exposure to endemic diseases in the rest of the world. It’s simply not done and I guarantee no ethics board would approve such research today.
Furthermore, it’s hilarious to suggest that the authors deliberately omitted cultures we know little about to reinforce their own agenda. How would they even know which tribes the exclude? And, as others have pointed out, even if all of these uncontacted tribes had only male hunting (a fact which would be highly surprising), it would barely change the conclusion here that in most forager societies, women engage in hunting.
Overall, this seems a very bad-faith critique. It’s good to delve into the science and examine whether a given paper was conducted in a sound way, but you need to approach it with an open mind, not just seek to undermine it with the simplest and most superficial criticism you can conceive of that supports your pre-existing position.
i thought the same thing, but these people persistence hunt today for over 8 hours. no mention of total distance but 8 hours is no joke.
The top of this comment thread is a person claiming that men do all the hunting in every primitive society, not just hunting based on long distance running.
You came into the thread to criticise a paper that showed that women hunt in 50 different societies around the world. Even your estimate of 50% is plenty enough examples to debunk the "all the hunting" claim.
Women are perfectly capable of drawing a bow that is suitable to hunt monkeys, rabbits, squirrels, small birds, etc. Accuracy is more important than power.
If your strategy for hunting mammoths involves your physical strength, you're gonna have a bad time.
Better doesn't always equal faster.
Better can equal going further.
Better can equal being more efficient.
Efficient means using less calories to do the same thing.
Persistence hunters today do track their prey, and often have to guess where the prey may have gone when the tracks are lost.
I wouldn’t consider 9% to be that large in this context. Certainly a difference that would be overshadowed by individual variation.
Even if we assume women are physiologically 9% slower at persistence hunting (which that statistic is far from proving) it still suggests they could and likely were successful at it, albeit maybe not the very best.
The fastest marathon time for men is 2 hours 1 minute and for women it is 2 hours 14 minutes.
"Fastest" does not mean the best endurance. You would be looking at the "longest".
Naked and Afraid and Women Who Hunt
Sounds like a very ...interesting show.
Meh...call me when a woman holds the world record for a marathon. It might happen in the next 100 years, but I strongly doubt it.
What bugs the shit out of me about all this...of course women hunted in times of need. They also hunted small game to help the tribe as needed.
I don't think that disrupts the overarching narrative of the male hunter and female gatherer. It's a general rule rather than a law.
So your theory is that women were the hunters, because they're faster after 200 miles? These people walked like 10-20 miles a day, and had to carry the food back home so that everyone else could eat. You imagine them going on month-long expeditions, carrying dead animals for 2 weeks back home? Are they also carrying mini fridges to keep the meat from spoiling?
I'm trying to even, but I can't.
That's not my theory. That's the data.
One interpretation could be that women were constantly engaged in strenuous endurance activities and so through evolution built up tolerances against exhaustion that at least rivals if not exceeds that of men. And one historical activity that used a lot of stamina and took a lot of tolerance against fatigue was the way in which ancient humans hunted.
That's not what a theory is, it's a hypothesis at best, hope that helped.
Yeah long term endurance hunting sounds like "bad hunting". You use up more calories, the prey expends more calories, you waste a whole day walking around in dangerous terrain and then you have to carry back the meat all the way back.
So even if their claims of greater female stamina bears out this would presumably only show that women can hunt better in certain worst case disciplines.
How does this make sense or am I missing something?
the world record
Nobody needed to be a world class athlete in order to sustain themselves through hunting, that's what the spears were for. Human sexual dimorphism is a lot more minor than what most people assume.
Human sexual dimorphism is a lot more minor than what most people assume.
This makes sense, but do you have any readings or evidence on the matter?
I just don’t think the evidence that supports this idea is very strong at all. Like maybe men on average did more hunting than women, but I haven’t seen any evidence to support this framing that women only hunted in times of need.
Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to know much for certain about the culture of prehistoric humans. But there is strong circumstantial evidence, like women buried with hunting implements, etc. which suggests that female hunters were prominent in at least some cultures.
This has nothing to do with toxic masculinity, i'd rather sit in a village and collect berries and cook than go hunting.
There will certainly be areas where the trail disappears, but tracking isn’t necessarily about locating every individual footfall.
With an understanding of movement and behavior, one can make inferences about where the animal went to find and follow the next sign.
Even moving over rock or packed soil, sign is left. You may not be able to perceive it yourself, but to someone who spends hours a day reading and studying the ground over the span of years, those subtle differences are perceptible.
An animal will eventually reach a place to stop and rest, but with repeated interruption that rest won’t count for much.
Women were first allowed to compete in marathons in 1972. In 1972 the men's record was 2:10:30. The current record is 2:00:35 which is about an 8% difference. Pretty close to the difference between men and women currently.
The first women's record was 3:40:22 and the current women's record is 2:11:53.11 which is 40% faster.
Once funding for women's athletics reaches parity and once girls are encouraged into athletics as much as boys, then we will see if the ladies catch up. So far they're doing a pretty good job catching up, and you can't look at one current window in time and say you have the answer, you need to look at trends.
The fastest marathon time for men is 2 hours 1 minute and for women it is 2 hours 14 minutes.
It's an unacceptable leap in logic to infer (from that statement) anything about populations of men and women. You've picked only a single sample from each population and chosen that highly biased representative.
Maybe women hunted, probably they did, maybe they didn't. Being able to run 100+ miles is freaking cool and great.
You DONT ENDURANCE HUNT into the next state. This is shit "evidence" of anything. It does not matter if you can lift 25% of not very much 2000% more than someone else can lift 25% of a lot, or if you can walk until 8 days from now and be less tired than someone else.
The premise is probably true that men and women both hunted, but endurance++ isn't a cut and dry argument for being a good huntress.
I've just come to notice that most men don't do a little squeal when startled, but women do. I just notice these things and I'm curious why there's a difference.
Startled by something happening around them. My example was a car accident happening somewhere in the same street, like one car hitting the other at slow speed.
You maliciously assuming there is a different motivation behind my comments is what's the actual problem here. I see people acting like this all the time, thinking in extremes like everything is either black or white, no gray areas. Not giving others the benefit of the doubt. I can tell you this is what's wrong with the world. All this tribalism and taking everything as an insult or an act of malice.
People like you can go fuck right off.
Not true, the fight or flight response is an automatic response of the nervous system.
The fight-or-flight or the fight-flight-freeze-or-fawn[1] (also called hyperarousal or the acute stress response) is a physiological reaction that occurs in response to a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival.
I've heard the female screech pretty much all over western societies. I hardly ever hear men do that. So I was just wondering.
As an autistic person, noises trigger me, and that's why I noticed females doing it more than males.
If it is conditioning, it's something particular to western society, I suppose.
Or have you never heard women do a little squal when startled? Most women seem to do that, while most men seem not to.
I'm just curious why there is a difference.
I'm a man and I scream when something scary and surprising or unstoppable happens.
I remember a couple of years ago, I was getting breakfast, half asleep, and out of the corner of my eye, a mouse climbed down the kitchen cabinet and ran under the stove and I had no idea what it was at first, just some moving blob, and it scared the shit out of me and I screamed like a child.
No shit it's wrong. Has anyone ever gone hiking with a bitch? They have no sense of direction, only way I'd send one out to ~~gather~~ do literally anything is if I didn't mind ~~her~~ him not finding ~~her~~ his way back.
FTFY
Well.. many of the younger women would be constantly pregnant back then, and engaged in communal child rearing. So they are going to be spending less time on mammoth hunts.
Ancient people's also worked way less than we do now.
It seems obvious that some of the women would be better hunters than some of the men. But that only suggests that too much specialization was bad, not that there wasn't any specialization at all. So headline seems wrong.
Also persistent hunting seems like the most inefficient type of hunting. You exhaust yourself and the prey and loose calories, the time it takes, traveling far over unknown terrain and then having to carry it all the way back and beware other predators. Is the argument that women are best at "shitty hunting"?
I imagine you'd track an animal, get close, throw spear, miss, keep tracking the animal. And if they haven't invented the spear yet, can they even be called human?
Can you please show us what connects your data to being a success as an endurance hunter? Because "men hold more records running a specific distance faster than women do" is not in any way an indication of hunting success.
Do you think Olympic target shooters make the best hunters when it comes to guns and bows?
How many marathons are run in a weaving path on uneven ground full of underbrush while trying to keep up with an animal that could potentially go in any direction at any time in the hopes that it will get tired before you do?
Because otherwise this marathon measurement is silly.
We have these things called binoculars, telescopes, cameras and drones. All of which are able to observe subjects from a safe distance.
Binoculars, telescopes and cameras will tell you little about what islanders are doing inside the forest where they hunt if you are using them from the ocean. Drones flying over Sentinel Island would violate Indian law and whoever did it would be in huge trouble. Their data would likely be disregarded due to the ethical issues.
On top of that, if they heard a drone coming, they might just change what they normally do.
Like these people. Hunting becomes less of an issue suddenly when there's a flying threat.
A marathon is not a speed race. It is a 42 km endurance race, similar to endurance hunters would have done on, say, the plains of Africa.
The vast majority of people today would be unable to finish even a half marathon without collapsing due to utter and complete exhaustion.
Another factor is, with endurance hunting, you will need to carry the carcass back to home base. So let's take am antelope, which weighs 125 kg. You need the hunters to bring that all back to base, AFTER the multi kilometer hunt is over.
However, as far as portaging, women are very adept at that:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-c…
Olympic shooters would make the absolute worst hunters, have you actually seen them shoot? It's a test of hand eye coordination to hit a paper target.
The theory proposes that hunting was a major driver of human evolution and that men carried this activity out to the exclusion of women. It holds that human ancestors had a division of labor, rooted in biological differences between males and females, in which males evolved to hunt and provide and females tended to children and domestic duties. It assumes that males are physically superior to females and that pregnancy and child-rearing reduce or eliminate a female's ability to hunt.
Oh boy, what a load of bullshit to start an article that may very well have a solid point. I lost all interest in reading at this paragraph.
"It holds" - as if there was only one theory - and everyone who believes that men were mostly hunters and women mostly gatherers would be guilty of the assumptions mentioned thereafter.
I, for one, only ever heard that due to men mostly hunting (because women were busy with children), men evolved to have a better perception of moving images e.g. small movements of prey in hiding, and women evolved to have a better perception of details of inanimate objects (e.g. finding things to forage). And that explanation - while not necessarily correct - made sense, and is in no way the sexist bullshit that the article insinuates.
The author of that article is not doing feminism a favor by basically alleging "all who believe men evolved to hunt and women to gather are chauvinists".
it is just an example how gender stuff infitrates siences like archeology and anthropology.
"It assumes that males are physically superior to females"
I hate how this is presented. I have vitamin deficency and i am really weak and lost a lot of weight, but i am still able to lift objects most women would not get of the ground. I weigh 64 kilos. that is not that much for a man.
this does not make me superior. it is just like it is.
I want to know how women like it to hunt while pregnant, having a baby on their hip, or small whiny children in tow.
give me a break. men evolved to hunters because the women told them to hunt.
they did not want to have them sit around and chew the fat with the children.
show me ONE women who says the she is worse than her husband in child rearing.
right, that will never ever happen. maybe if we have a drug addict or a severely cancer ridden person, but no.
women will die to have their children around. they will not go hunting if there is someone else that wants to do it.
but this is what I complain about. but yeah, i went over the rails, you are right. you have a point.
in that other thread, i mean, where the crosspost is, they talked a lot about patriarchy and stuff.
and i wondered: if women in the past were hunting and thus using their skill like men do and yada yada, not gender roles like today and stuff, does that mean that there was no patriarchy back then?
and i wondered: if women in the past were hunting and thus using their skill like men do and yada yada, not gender roles like today and stuff, does that mean that there was no patriarchy back then?
But you asked exactly that - and I gave you examples of women that "were hunting and thus using their skill" and there was no patriarchy in some of those systems - even into the present.
Also - let's be real - most men nowadays who talk about "men hunting" are fat slobs who couldn't hunt a chicken with a limp ;)
No, i asked for the past. ancient times.
most men nowadays who talk about “men hunting” are fat slobs who couldn’t hunt a chicken with a limp ;)
thats sounds like anectdotal evidence 
Invest #90L has been designated near #Texas in the Gulf of Mexico. It has a low chance of forming into a tropical depression in the next 7 days.
Latest info here: zoom.earth/storms/90l-2024/?da…
Startup accuses Nvidia and Microsoft of infringing on patents and forming a cartel
Xockets says Nvidia is infringing on its patents for data processing unit technology.
I haven't read the paper yet, but this may be a good idea for future elections (too late for 2024).
Open Source Tool Allows Voters to Verify Election Results
What's the best way to mount hard drives so that all users can access them at all times? Mint 22
Update: I managed to get it working with the answers from @Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me and this link:
zdnet.com/article/how-to-perma…
I've just installed Mint 22 on my laptop, and I've got two storage drives alongside my main drive. I want these drives to be available to all users on boot, and to be readable and writable. At the moment they're treated as removable drives, and are mounted under the individual user. As a result, any permissions that I'm setting as the owner are not sticking when they're mounted by another user.
The first drive is synced with my main PC through Syncthing, and is synced to Onedrive from there. The second drive is my music, podcasts, and audiobooks, which are all synced through Syncthing only. I'm the only person using the laptop and accessing any of these files, so I'm not bothered about the wrong user accidentally opening them.
I've read some posts about editing fstab to mount them at startup, but they don't cover whether the drives will be available to other users or not. Can I just add them to fstab and mount them somewhere that's available to all users, then sort out the permissions? If so, where's the best place to put them?
Thanks in advance :)
reshared this
Tech Cyborg reshared this.
I've read some posts about editing fstab to mount them at startup, but they don't cover whether the drives will be available to other users or not. Can I just add them to fstab and mount them somewhere that's available to all users, then sort out the permissions? If so, where's the best place to put them?
Yes pretty much. It just explicitly tells the system where to mount it, and for some filesystems you can even force the UID/GID and modes.
Usually /mnt/whatever for static mounts and /media/whatever for removable mounts (those appear as drives in file managers, whereas /mnt doesn't). You can set the users option in fstab and it'll let users mount and unmount it without sudo as well, or auto to always mount it on boot.
From there usually you can make a shared group, chown the mount to root:thatgroup, then chmod g+s to make sure the group is inherited. And you should mostly be good to go.
That's brilliant, thank you :)
Usually/mnt/whateverfor static mounts and/media/whateverfor removable mounts (those appear as drives in file managers, whereas /mnt doesn't).
Just to check, if I mount the drives under /media, will that still treat them as removable, or will they appear as permanent drives?
users in the option it shouldn't be unmountable.
Thanks for replying :)
I managed to get it working with the answers from @Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me and this link:
zdnet.com/article/how-to-perma…
I must have been testing it when you answered :)
#Bloomscrolling
Hiltner, S., Eaton, E., Healy, N., Scerri, A., Stephens, J. C., & Supran, G. (n.d.). Fossil fuel industry influence in higher education: A review and a research agenda. WIREs Climate Change, n/a(n/a), e904. doi.org/10.1002/wcc.904
Having used #fedora for months now I can see why #nvidia on #linux has gotten such a bad reputation.
Having used #arch for many years prior basically meant typing pacman -s nvidia and never thinking about it again.
It’s a huge pain in the ass on Fedora. First finding and enabling rpm fusion. Then there’s this whole module building business. Don’t restart your computer too quickly after upgrading the kernel or it’ll be broken! Still blows my mind that dnf cannot just block on building akmods.
GeoWend
in reply to Ars Technica • • •