“Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: […] like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.” —Jonathan Swift
he inherited Vietnam from Kennedy
He co-authored the Southern Strategy, he deliberately sabotaged the Vietnam peace talks to win the election, he explicitly targeted racial minorities and the anti-war left by starting the war on drugs, and need I even mention the obvious?
That what Slick wanted to do would not have helped is not an invitation to whitewash this monster.
Edit: And you mean “from LBJ”, unless you mean to say that Kennedy started US involvement, which he didn’t.
50–150 μg. 600 μg would severely fuck you up – let alone if you’ve never used it.
“What does ‘tamanduá’ mean in Venezuelan?”
For a solid 10 seconds, I was transported to a reality where Mozilla shunted development of Rust off to some random studio who were removing Linux support because it wasn’t in the budget.
The Flintstones, for what it’s worth, came out in a time before cartoons were seen as “for kids” by default. The Flintstones is basically The Honeymooners but animated and prehistoric, so while Winston would’ve unambiguously known it was marketing to some children, The Flintstones was an adult animated sitcom.
The Flintstones is retrospectively seen through the lens of “kids’ show” in large part because of things like kids’ merch (e.g. Flintstones vitamins and cereal), rerunning on stations like Cartoon Network, generally a more heavy “animation is for kids” defaultism, and the fact that later adult animated sitcoms like The Simpsons pushed the envelope much farther.
I replied to Scrubbles, not to you, OP. If you saw it, I actually edited in “sorry for the brutal honesty, OP” at the end for just a minute because after I’d already submitted that comment, I misread something you said that made me think this was your work-in-progress hobby project (which is really sad that I could’ve thought that to begin with). I did try it here as linked below, and it’s hilariously horrendous. It’s like somebody made a bootleg Docusaurus where the contents of the page are editable and you can do a poor man’s git diff between edits and said “done, we’re wiki software now”. There are so many things wrong with this in the way of being serious, productive wiki software that I don’t even know where to begin. It’s somehow only barely less terrible than Fandom, and Fandom has 20% of the screen dedicated to actual articles and is a cancer eating away at fan wikis (plugging Indie Wiki Buddy).
Edit: Is there not even a spot at the bottom of the page for the license the contents of the article are released under? Oh my god. Copyleft is the most singularly important aspect of a healthy, thriving wiki, and instead of telling me a license like CC BY-SA 4.0, it’s saying “Powered by Wiki.js”. I can’t. This is not a serious piece of software created by someone who’s touched a wiki in their life.
Fandom uses MediaWiki just like Wikimedia projects do, and that also means it uses wikitext rather than markdown. MediaWiki is especially nice because 1) it’s something prolific editors are already familiar with, 2) it has a great WYSIWYG editor called VisualEditor, 3) it’s basically guaranteed to be rock-solid, 4) it has good support and documentation, 5) wikitext is portable to functionally any wiki (apparently except Wiki.js right now, which is genuinely unacceptable for wiki software), and 6) a lot of tools, extensions, and preferences that let you customize your editing experience are made for MediaWiki.
Looking at Wiki.js as someone with a decade of extensive experience editing and administrating various wikis, it looks very style-over-substance. Assuming the screenshot of their docs is supposed to represent the wiki, it’s basic as all fuck in comparison to what a MediaWiki page is capable of. It’s literally just text, headers, and hyperlinks to other pages. This is something fiddling around with CSS for 20 minutes could produce.
The sidebar has a bog-standard telescoping ToC, a standard history button (I hope that leads to a full history, anyway), a star rating system*, and a bookmark/share/print icon trio. This is baby’s first wiki. Where are the templates? Captioned images? Tables? Not all pages have to have these things, but Wiki.js gives the reader one (1) image at the top as a first impression, and it’s something totally unremarkable.
* As someone with 25,000+ edits on Wikipedia where we actually rate articles (other wikis don’t seriously do this), I can tell you this is absolutely fucking useless. We have a rating system on Wikipedia called Stub, Start, C, B, GA, A (basically disused), and FA. This is on the talk page and is nomimally based on various criteria. Almost always, the people using it actually know what they’re doing. Here, though? You’re encouraging substituting an actual talk page discussion (which I don’t even see here) with a useless star rating. Does the star rating reset every time you make an edit in case you resolved past issues? Do the votes get a corresponding message? Will the votes mean literally anything beyond what you could already glean by looking at the page? If I can edit anonymously, can I vote anonymously? It’s just stupid fluff to make up for how utterly redundant this software is to MediaWiki.
Any chance of something like OpenWrt?
OP:
Through the years, archaeologists have found similar results at many other sites in Indonesia, India and China. As the evidence accumulates, it appears that people were able to survive and continue to be productive after Toba blew its stack. This suggests that this eruption might not have been the main cause of the population bottleneck originally suggested in the Toba catastrophe hypothesis.
While Toba might not help scientists understand what caused ancient human populations to plummet to 10,000 individuals, it does help us understand how humans have adapted to catastrophic events in the past and what that means for our future.
It’s a good article, and I enjoyed reading it, but did you? I think you should leave this post up, but you could instead retitle it to something like “TIL humanity survived an eruption 74,000 years ago that was 10,000 larger than the Mount St. Helens eruption”. (Also, Toba is in Indonesia in North Sumatra.)
Juno was mad, he knew he’d been had…
Funnily enough, that Unidan copypasta is 100% correct. I don’t know why, for as long-winded as it is, though, he doesn’t use more taxonomic names to make it precise: jackdaws are in genus Coloeus, and crows and ravens are in genus Corvus, both under family Corvidae. The apes are the primate superfamily Hominoidea*, which Homo sapiens sits under. There, Unidan; that’s all you had to say.
* To clarify, not “are in” – are. You are an ape if and only if your species is in this superfamily.
For those who might be confused, “daddy longlegs” colloquially refers to two totally separate things. Spiders are of the order Araneae under class Arachnida (they’re arachnids; go figure).
“Daddy longlegs” often refers to cellar spiders, the family Pholcidae within the spiders. However, “daddy longlegs” also refers to another order of arachnids altogether called Opiliones, also known as harvestmen. So if this doesn’t look like the daddy longlegs you know, that’s why; they’re not a “different type” of the cellar spider you’re familiar with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_eye
(At a glance, this article needs some touching up and hasn’t been meaningfully contributed to in some years.)
OP, you say “free, open source, and fully attributed”, but it’s really not fully attributed. I know Google will live, but you need to be more attentive to licensure and credit. Here are some major problems (in no particular order):
LICENSE file, you call the copyright status of the icons “uncertain”. This confuses the hell out of me, because on the icons pack page for Google, it clearly reads at the bottom: Except as otherwise noted, the content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License, and code samples are licensed under the Apache 2.0 License.
Now you have all your research done for you, and Cunningham’s law is proven right again.
Also, if you put your image(s) under a compatible license (CC BY-SA or less restrictive), we on Wikipedia also pull from iNaturalist for images to add to Wikimedia Commons. It helps a surprising amount.
Correct, as it has to. In addition to behavior, CheckUsers use IP addresses to help identify sockpuppets. If you could bypass the exemption by just saying “here’s a new account; pls exempt”, it would quickly become common knowledge among sockmasters that all they need is to quickly ask and be accepted days later.
At that point, the block on proxy editing near-completely fails at one of its main functions.
I don’t know what you mean by “identify yourself”. You need an account with a trustworthy history of editing, at which point you can request the exemption.
Please give me a whole tray of… peas.