Sumerian culture was many thousands of years after the end of the ice age. Even the last big cooling event was a couple thousand years before Mesopotamian cities, and that was just a cooling event, not something with big ice sheets that turn into floods when it warms up. What they had is the Tigris and Euphrates that did flood on a regular basis, sometimes catastrophically - the floods of the Nile brought fertilization from the upper terrains they covered and it was predictable like clockwork, but the floods of Mesopotamia were destructive and unpredictable. One thing it absolutely didn’t do is cover the whole Mesopotamian plain, it just flooded the land surrounding the river. Unfortunately, people make cities near those rivers - but the mountains were WAY too far to run to them. Mesopotamia is just basically one gigantic flat plain, it doesn’t have random mountains in the middle.

We have geological records of one big flood dated around 2900 BCE that destroyed most notably Shuruppak (it got better), which held a big cultural position at the time, and a few other cities in the area. What’s funny is that by the time the Flood story was integrated into Akkadian / Babylonian culture, sometimes between 2000 and 1800 BCE, there were still people living in Shuruppak, which is named in those myths as having been destroyed.

The main canon has been dancing around it for a bit but the theme that Jedi ideals are actually shit has been around for a while, ever since the prequel trilogy showed that their complacency allowed fascism and corruption to rise and spread easily. I thought episode 3 showed the rift pretty well: Jedi don’t like to leave strong force-sensitive kids on their own because they don’t trust random nobodies to raise them “properly” therefore they make a law that they can check up on every single kid being born (but only if they want to and with the parents approval!) and obviously people don’t trust the guvmint surveilling every single planet and kidnapping their kids.

I’m leaning toward “the Jedi did really do it” because they thought they were up against crazy religious fundies (especially with Joe No Chair apologizing to the point of drinking the poison voluntarily), and I’m looking forward to the real answer, whether it confirms or denies my expectations.

Everyone getting the same chance means 50/50 hiring because believe it or not, women do want to work in all fieds; the current 70/30 soon goes down to 50/50 from there. And yes, men do want to work in healthcare and child care and education, surprise. Why do you need to make sure they can’t? Because that is in fact the same process that happens, one side is actively shunned from some jobs and the other side gets shunned all the same, even though there are people on both sides who do want to work in both types of jobs. The reality that you pretend doesn’t exist is that there are 10 women who want to be an engineer at the beginning of their education and they get stomped down to 1 until she gets passed over for some 10 men who at first wanted to work in healthcare but were bullied into engineering. This 1 woman to 10 men scenario is your own creation.

It takes actual work of being unfair to maintain the imbalance you benefit from. Man you don’t even understand the math of your own argument, maybe the women who get hired over you actually are more skilled.

It should be 7 men 3 women, on average

No, it should not. That’s just ridiculous. You don’t fix unequality by maintaining it just because that’s what you’re always known. You want to keep the privileges you have now while denying improving the situation of others, because you think losing your unfair advantage over others becomes unfair to you, that’s nonsense.

Hiring 50/50 is not discriminating against you just because you were at 70 before. You don’t get to decide that half the female population of the planet shouldn’t be allowed to work - because that’s what your 70/30 is, if the 70 is most of the male population (let’s imagine a >90% employment rate), then the 30 is around half of the female population, you’re saying the other half will never be allowed to work. You’re assuming they can keep being SAHM or whatever else.

The thing is that the 70% of workers being men shouldn’t mean there are less men if it becomes 50%. Men aren’t losing their jobs. It means there are more workers, including the same number of men, and more women. This isn’t supposed to be a zero sum game when population grows.

Oops, sorry for the confusion.

But now you’ve also influxed a tonne of women into that workforce, meaning now you’ll need to hire disproportionately more men next generation.

Even though we reached equal representation? You want to reinject more of one side to recreate the imbalance we were getting away from a minute ago? The only gap is between generations, when the old people retire, at first that’ll be a lot of men since they’re the only ones that were there, but it shouldn’t be that hard to map that out to maintain equality through the change. Plus, hiring seniors is a thing, so hiring older women and not all young women can immediately balance that retirement sausage fest faster, removing the gender imbalance per generation. You’re supposed to hire at all levels, entry level only is just more corporate speak. And that’s not just about women or minorities, that’s already a subject for people who can’t get a job because companies want both experience and entry level pay, this isn’t new, it already hits everyone, including poor white men. Fixing this helps everyone.

Also, I mentioned it before, but I’m not talking about a single company on a single job position. As long as everyone plays the game, and not everyone has the same amount of people on the same generation and retiring at the same time, it shouldn’t be that hard to smooth out the curb to the middle, and then stay there. All HR departments in the world should know how to plan that, they’re built around their love of Excel sheets.

Hiring 50/50 is of course part of it, yes, it’s not like the whole world is really doing 100% women only everywhere, you know that’s just not reality. If one company is doing “men need not apply”, you know there are other companies that aren’t. Of course that depends on the job, because places that say “this job is only good for women” (like, you know, low-level healthcare), or the other way around (mechanics? That’s only for men!), has been an issue long before people started complaining about diversity hire, they just didn’t like to mention it because they liked it. Hiring exclusively women was fine when it was for low level jobs that men obviously don’t want to do - except there’s plenty of men who do want to work in healthcare or childcare or education, and they can’t.

Encouraging young men and women to branch out more is of course a good idea, but we’ve seen for decades that women who want to try STEM and the likes often ended up chased away by men who say “it’s no place for women” (students, senior employees, teachers) and because the culture is already plagued by sexism and racism and exclusion and actual threats. Starting at the bottom and doing nothing else doesn’t actually work, we’ve tried that and it failed hard and we’ve all gone surprised pikachu face about it. The fact is that young women do want to try STEM, until they get assaulted and victimized, just like there are young men who do want to try traditionally female jobs, until they get mocked and harassed for not being manly enough. These people already exist, we’re already telling them to try it out - only to destroy them within a couple years. We do have to include the middle and the top right from the start, it has to happen everywhere, and people who fight back have to be forced to accept it - we have to clean up the “locker room” culture and the “traditional gender role” culture to protect the people that want to join these places.

You complained that hiring was focusing on women and men didn’t need to apply and that’s not equality. I discussed why diversity is important to lift up people in need and why that is, in fact, equality. You’re the one who keeps focusing on poor white men, pretending that I’m ignoring them, why are you pretending they don’t benefit from equality and improving housing, education, childcare? Equality helps everyone.

hire minorities at a much greater proportion than how they’re represented in the population

Oh okay you’re just straight up lying then lmao. To those used to privilege, equality feels like oppression. Did you know that about half of humanity is female? You know half the people in high places aren’t female. Or even in medium places. And let’s not even talk about all the other minorities.

Wherever you are, see if you can find some unemployment or income numbers for your area, if it’s broken down by gender or ethnicity. It might surprise you!

So you’re saying to start a new system where you only hire non white/ non males.

I say balance and that’s your take?

poor white people who never had any opportunities and currently don’t but, fuck them right, they are white.

Man. I spoke about hiring based on skills the whole time. This imbalance in poor, less skilled white men was already there before you started talking about diversity hire, but you chose to blame diversity hire, because you think unskilled women or minorities get hired over skilled but poor white men. I spoke about improving housing, education, childcare, and all other basic needs, I didn’t say that only applies if you’re not a white man. It goes for everyone. But those poor white men aren’t getting help from the current situation either way, and you seem to think that the only solution is to hire them over minorities. You’re not talking about helping all the people in this situation, you just want the poor white men to get hired and not get passed over for less skilled women - you’re fine with leaving everyone else behind. You’re not even considering that everyone might deserve a spot somewhere, you think there’s only one spot and it should go to the skilled white man.

Minorities get passed over and screwed over for basic needs like housing, education, childcare, etc. As a result, when someone says “we only hire competent people, the best people for the job, it’s not our fault if these minorities we interviewed happen to be incompetent” that’s already setting things up to reduce their presence in society, which loops into making them poorer, with less access to basic needs and so on. Refusing to hire a woman for one job and hiring a man instead because you think she’s less competent is tunnel vision, you’re focusing on a single job and trying to scale that to the whole of society; the most direct answer is just to hire more people and train everyone. It’s corporate thinking to assume you will only hire a single perfect worker for all of your jobs, but all you’re doing is only reducing your work force, which only ever works for the corporate bottom line until you run out of people to fire. And when the imbalance is so bad, there is a point where, on a large sale, you need to hire a higher number of women / Black people / handicapped people to catch up, because you’ve shut them down the whole time; and that basically makes it your own fault if you think they’re less competent than educated competent men, because they didn’t get the opportunity, because they didn’t get the training, because… they didn’t get the opportunity.

The “hire only competent people = only white men” is a self-fulfilling prophecy because it creates the entire situation of everyone else being less competent, being lower on the decision totem pole (like the decision to help minorities get out of that loop), having lower incomes. If you help only your own because they have the skills you want, you are creating the situation where you perceive everyone else to be lower by your own standards. Someone’s gotta make the first step to bring everyone up to the same level, and you know it’s not going to start in education and housing. Because those people are not up there making the decision to help with that. The people who can make the decision choose not to help, because those minorities don’t have the same skills as this other guy here.

The “gospels were dictated by first hand witness” idea is a massive problem because that’s not first hand account at all, that’s actually someone claiming that someone else told him “dude I swear I saw it happen in front of me as clear as I see you” (or worse, the guy who wrote it claims that he found this text written by someone else 50 years ago) and we somehow chose to believe both the guy who wrote it and the supposed guy who told him that. Having something dictated is second hand account, not first hand, because that’s just changing the pronoun of the person speaking. And there were extensive analysis of the text itself to try to figure out what kind of person would have phrased this or that in certain ways, whether it says “I saw that myself” or “my uncle who works at Nintendo told me he saw it himself”, and that analysis, done for the entirety of the Bible, has gone pretty far, including the gospels. As far as I know about it, the biggest point about that analysis is which gospel was written first and which ones copied from which ones or added their own thing, rahter than 4 different people recounting their memories of the same events.

I don’t know about the timeline of the temple; I’ve heard it brought up before, but I haven’t heard that it was considered conclusive evidence for dating the text, so I don’t know more than that and how it holds to the text analysis.

None of those are first hand. The gospels were written by other people more than a generation (60 years) after, not by people who were alive in that period of 30 years.

Notice how it says people agree but doesn’t say there is any evidence.

The best we have is letters from a whole generation after his death, and it’s only people saying “these guys say there was a dude a while back” , second hand comments, no living first hand account.

You’re correct. Chœur is chorus and cœur is heart BTW.

æ is in purely Latin words like ex æquo, et cætera, or curriculum vitæ, that’s all. œ appears in œil (eye) so you see that a lot more commonly already, but I can’t think of any other word that uses it off the top of my head (beside other derivated words like œillères). (pardon the puns)

A lot of the trash talk about him was made up by Christian historians, I’m pretty sure the “beating his pregnant wife to death” is confirmed, or at the very least heavily debated, to be one of the made up bullshit. And yes, it’s generally believed that he is the “beast” from Revelation butt again that’s because of the early Christian hate. It’s probably because he accused the early Christian sect of causing the fire of Rome (which we’re still not sure they didn’t), and the whole “throwing them to lions” thing, and they fought back by spreading shit about him.

Marrying a castrated slave lover is legit though, and IINM I think Nero was the one dressed as the bride.

The way I see it, it doesn’t matter what she said, it was only happening to make her creepy. If Ruby’s guess near the end is right, the whole point of her being there, haunting her, making people run away, was to make specifically this one man run away in terror, and there’s no way whatever that was had anything to do with anyone else abandoning Ruby. She simply says something so terrifying that people run away, that’s it, it doesn’t matter what exactly, and it doesn’t even have to be the same thing for everyone. Same with the teleport: she did it the same way she time travelled back into her past. How? We don’t know either, and it doesn’t matter, it’s just here to make her creepy.

The Doctor told her about this terrible Welsh minister, and she made it her life’s mission to get rid of him, and then went back to her young self. Why did the Doctor vanish? Why 73 yards? Why did her mom and Kate turn on her? We don’t know, it’s magic. Or it’ll be revealed later, maybe, or maybe it won’t. The creepiness, the distance, is to make her afraid, to make others afraid, and to make her realize she has an easy way to make the guy run away. It doesn’t make sense, it just has to work for her to think “I can weaponize that” and connect the dots. I’m fine with the details not making sense personally, it’s not that kind of episode, I thought it was well executed.

Only thing I would have hoped to see at the end is the Doctor again realizing that his memory changed between telling Ruby about Robert and then Robert disappearing from History in the future. Just to tie with the previous one.

Kassandra and Eivor (canonically the woman version) exist, your argument is invalid.

Also I assumed the comment about the Black guy being violent was a joke, but we have the historical document that says Oda was impressed with Yasuke because (among other reasons) he was as strong as 10 men, so it makes sense.

Also the use of a kannabo is sick AF, I’m already 90% sold just for that gameplay.

Completing the trilogy “after 28 days” and “after 28 weeks”

beings from other planets,

Not that one, no.

Good for you? You’re still pretending that a Black guy in Japan somehow breaks some rules of the game. It’s still true to History, the stealth is still there, nothing is broken, this is still the same Assassin’s Creed as the previous games.

The stealth missions will use Naoe, the open combat missions will use Yasuke, nothing is broken. get a clue and drop the excuses already.