Does anyone know of good resources on regional literacy rates in central and eastern Europe from about 1897 to about 1931? Asking for myself.
Mitchell’s European Historical Statistics 1750-1970 has data on the number of students and teachers in schools, which could also work, but doesn’t have data on the Russian Empire, the Baltic States, or the Soviet Union.
Hellofa time period. Austro-Hungary and the western Russian Empire got hammered in the years following. Start looking into where the surviving records ended up?
I can’t do that, sorry.
I would be happy to work with detailed data from after the wars, but it’s harder to find than scattered, incomplete, or aggregate-across-all-areas data from before.
The early 20th-century Statesman’s Year-Books include a lot of the last type. Unfortunately, they don’t always specify the age range, since literacy rate figures may start at birth, at age 9, at 15, and in some countries, at conscription into the army.
In 1929, James Abel and Norman Bond, “Illiteracy in the Several Countries of the World” is a usable compilation.
No, no, the sun rises in the 1st hour of the day, which is 12 hours, and sets in the 1st hour of the night, another 12 hours. Each hour corresponds with half an astrological house. So for example:
“Now the sun had risen higher, and when it had finished its course through Leo, and was passing into the house of the heavenly Virgo…”
Either refers to it being August, or refers to the beginning of the 3rd hour of the night, if passing from Virgo onto Leo, or to the beginning of the 11th hour of the day, if counting houses in the same direction as the sun’s apparent rotation instead of the reverse direction.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ammian/31*.html#ref:decurso_Leone
For whatever reason, Waterfox and presumably also Firefox default both en-US and go to “other writing systems.” Meaning I have to pick one font for both:
And C defaults to… who knows what.
It’s not as annoying to me as “forgot your password”? but it could pose a problem to some other users.
So there’s this narrative that it’s ableist to want to avoid secondhand smoke, because addiction is a disability, and anxiety is a disability.
But you know being allergic to nicotine is also a disability, and telling people we should choke is kinda ableist.
Very bad migraine + nausea + Kavanaugh…
One of the challenges of wargame design is that you have to evaluate how much more effective one force is than another (such as when one side is an elite unit and the other isn’t), or sometimes how much more effective their equipment is (such as when one side has mail armor and the other doesn’t).
Mainstream history is full of “more” or less" or even “effective” or “not effective” but not how much more. Wehraboo history is worse. One controversial but much-needed attempt to say how much better comes from Trevoy N. Dupuy. I’m hoping to go over his “Numbers, Preductions, and War,” in the next couple weeks.
Right now, I know that his other work suggests that the German Army of WWI was more than 1.2x as effective, per front-line soldier, than the French Army or British Army. And he claims it was between 1.7x and 2.8x as effective as the old Russian Army.
I did my own calculations based on division counts, ammunition available, and casualty and prisoner data, though I’d like good data for strengths on each side, and these suggest the German Army was less than 1.4x as effective as the old Russian Army.
So 1st, I’ve done some challenging and frustrating work there.
2nd, if you need to put rough numbers on things-- how much more experienced should this character be, how much better protection does this armor class give, etc.-- I think it’s worth trying to work out appropriate estimates, instead of “a scale from 1 to 10.”
Thoughts?
http://justsomeantifas.tumblr.com/post/178925053929/yall-keep-begging-people-to-vote-because-we-all
I figure there’s still the possibility that, if enough of us work together, then we can slow down the train. And it’s harder for us to work together if a Nazi with a gun has declared himself conductor, in order to “save the train from black people.”
My take on it is that there’s three ways the future could play out:
I think people trying for #1 are naïve, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Yes, the system is designed to maintain entrenched power structures rather than overthrowing them, but it’s also designed with the pretense of letting “the People” make the decisions. The latter can be exploited to overcome the former, and it’s an attack that can’t be blocked without abandoning the pretense entirely (leading to situation #3).
Actually attempting to achieve result #3, though, is, I think, incredibly heartless and irresponsible. The system is broken, yes, but people are still depending on it to survive, and they will die if the system is allowed to collapse.
Personally, I think that #2 is the best option: to start fresh, in such a way that your new organization is not constrained by the limits of the old one, while keeping the old system, broken as it is, intact until something better is ready to replace it.
If you’re hard at work on option #2: great! I understand how you think that participating in the current system at all might be counterproductive to your goals, so feel free to abstain from voting.
If not, if you’re too busy or too jaded or whatever to not participate in creating the next system, the very least that you can do is try to minimize the damage that the current system is doing, and that requires voting.
To go back to the train analogy: Yes, the train is broken, and had no brakes. But the current conductor is choosing to switch to the tracks where the greatest number of people will be harmed, and that’s something that can be prevented by replacing the conductor. And maybe, just maybe, with a willing conductor and some competent engineers, the brakes can be fixed. I understand not believing that, though, in which case: get those engineers to start building a better train, because this one is going to crash, sooner or later, and unless we can move the passengers over to a train which has brakes, it’s going to end in, well, a bloody trainwreck.
Do any of you know of a good distance calculator? Maybe 22 known stops in the Great Don Host and Ukraine, so straight-line distance won’t help. Google Maps isn’t an option due to the zooming.
Google Earth (the Linux version if it’s still available) has a measurement widget. It’s a pain in the ass to use, of course.
Thanks.
I found Meander, which lets me work with handy maps. Just need to take calculated distance for the route x original distance for the scale / calculated distance for the scale. Which comes out close to my painstaking work with measuring tape.
More realistic Jurassic Park
Feathers
“To fill the gaps, we used the dna of tinamous, alligators, and whiptail lizards…”
Because really too many reproductive differences between archosaurs and frogs, not nearly as many between archosaurs and whiptail lizards, since both are amniotes.
Ignorance: “Frankenstein is the monster.”
Knowing: “Dr. Frankenstein created the monster.”
Understanding: “Dr. Frankenstein is the monster.”
Galaxy Brain: “Mary Shelley is the monster.”
Mary Daly Brain: “Dionysus is the monster. And Zeus.”
Persephone Brain: “Together, we can defeat Zeus.”
(See The Dark Wife. by Sarah Deimer.)
Is it so much to say that if you take the position, you take on certain obligations? Such as investigating key matters that the press and ordinary citizens aren’t able to thoroughly investigate?
In a time where the committee isn’t already split in a partisan manner, sure, maybe an investigation of a sitting President belonging to one of those parties might be done in a nonpartisan way. Theoretically.
Expecting to come onboard in the middle of such an investigation, with an extreme partisan divide already existing within the committee, and mend that divide just by “being the adult in the room,” smells closer to capitulation than compromise.
When one side is ignoring democratic norms, you’re not going to fix that just by sticking scrupulously to those norms yourself, and in a fight where only one side is willing to fight dirty, the dirty side is going to win.
The solution isn’t to take the high ground: it’s to poison the low ground, to penalize fighting dirty, to force both sides to return to the supposed “democratic norms.”
I can’t condone the hyperpartisan environment that currently exists at all levels of American politics, but if one side engages in hyperpartisanship and the other doesn’t, that’s not setting an example of statesmanship, that’s surrendering to a shift of the Overton window away from your position.
I have no idea how you would go about disincentivizing hyperpartisanship, though.
Oh no! A company selling harm overcharged people who paid for harm… if they’re selling video ads, they probably inflicted a few seizures in the process, so what about the people who were harmed?
