You know the weird trope in a lot of RPGs where an ancient artifact is this strangely advanced thing? If you think about it, that's happened before. After the fall of the Roman empire, Western Europe was in a dark age. People were living in the ruins of buildings they couldn't figure out how to build, and often those ancient artifacts were better than anything that could be produced by current technology. Imagine something like some of the Greek clockwork showing up in some dark age village.
That's not the first time that happened, either. The early classical Greeks were often living in the ruins of Mycenaean Greek castles, and after the bronze age collapse some of the societies in the region didn't even maintain writing as a technology, so there were artefacts that were impossible for the people of the time to reproduce with current technology.
We also saw the collapse of the Indus valley civilization that had things as advanced as plumbing and sewage systems, where those technologies were lost to the indian subcontinent until much later.
There are ruins in Zimbabwe which are incredible of castles made of stone, completely inconsistent with what we imagine when we hear the word "Africa" as well. It seems that the high level of technology represented by Great Zimbabwe was not comparable to later civilizations until relatively recently.
The Terracotta army created after the death of the first emperor of the Qin dynasty in China was on such a level of magnitude and precision that the following periods of the Han dynasty and the Three Kingdoms period simply couldn't have reproduced it.
The Moche civilization in ancient Peru was known for its elaborate irrigation systems, advanced ceramic arts, and complex social organization, but the civilization collapsed and with the end of that civilization much of their technologies were lost.
Many societies before us didn't see history as a straight line, but a cycle. If it's true that civilization existed for in some form for 100,000 years before recorded history began which is suggested by some things like the story of the 7 Pleiades sisters where one sister left to describe a 6 star constellation where 100,000 years ago there may have been 7 stars showing then it could be that such a worldview is mor consistent with reality than our modern one.
While our postmodern view of societies says that civilizations fail because things aren't progressing enough, the dark age Christians believed that their predecessors collapsed because of a lack of moral virtue. The Bronze Age civilizations blamed "Sea People". The Mesopotamians told stories about a great flood sent by the gods as punishment for hubris. Two American civilizations claim that our current world is either the 4th or 6th one to exist and the rest were destroyed in cataclysms.
That's not the first time that happened, either. The early classical Greeks were often living in the ruins of Mycenaean Greek castles, and after the bronze age collapse some of the societies in the region didn't even maintain writing as a technology, so there were artefacts that were impossible for the people of the time to reproduce with current technology.
We also saw the collapse of the Indus valley civilization that had things as advanced as plumbing and sewage systems, where those technologies were lost to the indian subcontinent until much later.
There are ruins in Zimbabwe which are incredible of castles made of stone, completely inconsistent with what we imagine when we hear the word "Africa" as well. It seems that the high level of technology represented by Great Zimbabwe was not comparable to later civilizations until relatively recently.
The Terracotta army created after the death of the first emperor of the Qin dynasty in China was on such a level of magnitude and precision that the following periods of the Han dynasty and the Three Kingdoms period simply couldn't have reproduced it.
The Moche civilization in ancient Peru was known for its elaborate irrigation systems, advanced ceramic arts, and complex social organization, but the civilization collapsed and with the end of that civilization much of their technologies were lost.
Many societies before us didn't see history as a straight line, but a cycle. If it's true that civilization existed for in some form for 100,000 years before recorded history began which is suggested by some things like the story of the 7 Pleiades sisters where one sister left to describe a 6 star constellation where 100,000 years ago there may have been 7 stars showing then it could be that such a worldview is mor consistent with reality than our modern one.
While our postmodern view of societies says that civilizations fail because things aren't progressing enough, the dark age Christians believed that their predecessors collapsed because of a lack of moral virtue. The Bronze Age civilizations blamed "Sea People". The Mesopotamians told stories about a great flood sent by the gods as punishment for hubris. Two American civilizations claim that our current world is either the 4th or 6th one to exist and the rest were destroyed in cataclysms.
I seen a film like that before. It wasn't my thing but I guess some people really really like cars...
https://deadline.com/2023/07/actors-equity-sag-aftra-strike-avoid-breaking-kate-shindle-1235438177/
Equity President Says “The Other Side Will Try To Pit Us Against Each Other”
The job of an "equity president" is literally putting people against each other. It's right there in the name. *oh, bob is better at acting that's so unfair!* *Oh Jane has a PhD in filmography but why does she make more money than me?*
Equity President Says “The Other Side Will Try To Pit Us Against Each Other”
The job of an "equity president" is literally putting people against each other. It's right there in the name. *oh, bob is better at acting that's so unfair!* *Oh Jane has a PhD in filmography but why does she make more money than me?*
On one hand, Bud Light is down to 14th place from 1st place in sales. On the other, Mike Lindell is selling factory equipment because his company got canceled so bad.
You know, I'm pretty OK if companies just get tf out of politics. I don't want to have to think about what brand of pillow or running shoe or beer or whatever says about who I'd vote for in a general election. It's hard enough choosing the best product for the best price without adding an entire arbitrary dimension on top of that.
You know, I'm pretty OK if companies just get tf out of politics. I don't want to have to think about what brand of pillow or running shoe or beer or whatever says about who I'd vote for in a general election. It's hard enough choosing the best product for the best price without adding an entire arbitrary dimension on top of that.
Those are rookie numbers. You need to be killing at least 2 people before lunch every day.
Opposition to what the activists are doing right now is not only not anti-lgbt as a whole, it's pro-lgbt in the long term.
The activists are behaving in such a way that they're causing a backlash. If you were trying to calculate a strategy to cause a full-on violence, I don't think you could come up with a much better strategy than what we've been seeing.
I mean, who's Bright Idea is it to March down the street chanting "we're coming for your children"? Fire that they/them.
The activists are behaving in such a way that they're causing a backlash. If you were trying to calculate a strategy to cause a full-on violence, I don't think you could come up with a much better strategy than what we've been seeing.
I mean, who's Bright Idea is it to March down the street chanting "we're coming for your children"? Fire that they/them.
A problem with being homeless specifically is that it's usually not just a resource problem. Often there's a much bigger and sadder story that means throwing money at the person won't help necessarily.
I feel like anyone who can't even comprehend of why people might follow commandments they believe were handed down by God (allegorically in the story of Lot and the city of Sodom and Gomorrah) in the perfect book of the Quran is seriously lacking in cognition.
One can disagree with the conclusion, but to be incapable of even comprehending the conclusion is a failure of the person who can't comprehend anyone having an opinion different than their own.
One can disagree with the conclusion, but to be incapable of even comprehending the conclusion is a failure of the person who can't comprehend anyone having an opinion different than their own.