to be fair though steam powered toys were known in since roman times around 1 century bc mentione first . Probably used as a party trick or teaching material
Steam-powered toys are closer to regular toys than they are to working steam engines. Steam is very hazardous but almost limitless in potential. Watt's engine was more complex than the "steam powered x, y, z" kind of thing, and he was around before the USA was even a thing. Isaac Newton is the same kinda deal - these guys were really far ahead. Newton was born nearly 400 years ago and Watt was nearly 300 years ago.
The gun is the hard part of that - gun barrels aren't made like pipes, they're a solid block of metal forged into that shape. Most pipes are made from bent, welded sheets.
FWIW, the traditional best were ceramic/terracotta. A lot of those are still used - wooden ones are better for buildings, but the aquaduct principle is still in use today. Most of the West uses reservoirs at higher altitudes than the population, and lets gravity produce the pressure gradient.
Meanwhile bunch of diasesse ridden, famine riddn warring small states managed to turn to empire by the sole virtues of arms race who will make the faster ship and bigger boom, all thanks to science and invetions. So they rewarded that.
They were only some of those things, and certainly not small. Charlemagne's Empire was around 10% of the global population at that time - Europe was usually between 1/4 and 1/3rd of the global population. It never really "stopped" being one of the two centres - China being the other centre.
The Romans and Chinese actually knew about one another. The Chinese loved the idea of another Empire. The Romans thought they were gay, because their products were fine silk and gold.
Indians just make shit up about their history and throw it into "scientific" articles - every time you check the source, it's some blatant lie about Indian history and capabilities. They actually come up behind both China and Europe, by several centuries, and invented very little. They just take credit for other inventions without providing any evidence.
They actually come up behind both China and Europe, by several centuries, and invented very little. They just take credit for other inventions without providing any evidence.
Didn't they basically invent linguistics and philosophy? Like I'm pretty sure ancient greek philosophy (which ended up forming the foundation of contemporary western analytic philosophy) was largely influenced by ancient Indian philosophy via trade routes. Like I get the impulse to poo-in-the-loo post but this is literally just historically inaccurate. I think in general it's going to be pretty difficult to accurately argue that any culture invented *nothing*.
Didn't they basically invent linguistics and philosophy? Like I'm pretty sure ancient greek philosophy (which ended up forming the foundation of contemporary western analytic philosophy) was largely influenced by ancient Indian philosophy via trade routes. Like I get the impulse to poo-in-the-loo post but this is literally just historically inaccurate. I think in general it's going to be pretty difficult to accurately argue that any culture invented *nothing*.
Then I checked closely. They're off by decades, and essentially say "Alexander the Great, because he conquered India, must have learned how to conquer from them!"
They didn't. They seriously didn't, and since I started digging, I am now convinced that ancient Greeks did much more in India than we thought. They went all the way to Sri Lanka and built some shit there, apparently.
Indians just make shit up about their history and throw it into "scientific" articles - every time you check the source, it's some blatant lie about Indian history and capabilities. They actually come up behind both China and Europe, by several centuries, and invented very little. They just take credit for other inventions without providing any evidence.
India genuinely did have the best metallurgy in the world (ie steel smelting) for over two millennia. They were producing high quality iron in relatively large quantities since the 1800s BCE.
It’s not just propaganda, their iron (“wootz steel”) was enormously desirable for its unmatched quality in medieval Europe.
What do you think the ratio of male to female users on Kiwi Farms is? I feel like it's 90:10 and it increased recently thanks to Null's misandrist speech friendly policies but the overwhelming majority are still scrotes. Even in Salon threads, too many moids are posting
I'm assuming this guy points out orangs as model mothers because the males play no part in raising their offspring, which is probably this guy's preferred parenting role
china population is declining and there horrifying statistics floating around showing population will halve if they keep the current thrend up with 1 kid per woman and sky high infertility due to pollution.
Their big issue right now is their economy, the Han majority has been allowed to have multiple kids for a few years now but nobody can afford to do so. They stopped publishing unemployment numbers because boomers do boomer things and refuse to let the young fucking work, unemployment for below-30s was at 30% when they stopped publishing a few years ago. Their economy is crashing so hard that Xi's title has unofficially become "accelerator in chief"
"accelerator in chief, The Fla-Xi"
China falling into "the bottomless abyss"
"Last night on Mount Haruna (not sure what the reference is), I let a Pooh bear pass me. He flipped his car (term for a trainwreck) making the turn, his car was so fast, I could only see the sign for Qingfeng Buns (shop where Xi pulled a publicity stunt) was on the car"
Biden: "I will bring China under control!"
Victim: Chinese economy
I still can't figure out where this claim comes from besides old-school chud cope. They invented landmines, guns, naval mines, cannons, flamethrowers, and a similar design to a gatling gun (multiple barrels, a magazine feeding bullets into what was effectively a receiver, whenever a barrel aligned with the flame it would shoot) 炮用精銅鑄之，約長四尺，中容法藥一升五合，藥從口發。旁鑄一嘴，長四尺餘約，藏彈、鉛百枚，堅木為架。八面旋輕櫃，幹堅起則鉛彈落，銳竅次第發出，以擊賊兵，使賊不能偷我營寨。此銳一架，足抵強兵五十人。 以上三器，用安營寨則萬賊不能，為主者不可不知也。
"A four-foot long 1.5L cast bronze tube, filled with gunpowder which emits from an opening [receiver]. Another 4 foot long [bronze] cast adjoined to the mouth contains bullets and 100 lead pieces on a hardwood rack." (this was the first two sentences, I'll come back and translate the rest later)
Two encyclopedias exist of pre-Ming military applications of gunpowder, the earlier one (mid 14th century) was wiped out by the Manchus, the later one (1402) still exists along with the annotated illustrations. As with any new technology, some of the inventions were retarded (e.g. a shield with a built-in flamethrower), some were not quite ideal (cannons were short-range siege weapons at this point), and some were absolutely flawless down to their name (a landmine called a "self-inflicted bomb" or "[your-]own-fault bomb", a pressure switch that activated a bomb beneath it), and don't forget shrapnel-filled bombs ("swarming bee bomb"), hwachas, and fire arrows.
Indians just make shit up about their history and throw it into "scientific" articles - every time you check the source, it's some blatant lie about Indian history and capabilities
This is true. I think my dad is a good father because he encouraged me to moid hate without feeling bad about it. Said it’s a useful tool to protect myself from terrible men.
Honestly one thing that can blackpill any women about men is observing how their dads react to them dating other men. The way dads are suspicious of every boy who wants to date *their* daughter, the jokes along the lines of if-you-don't-treat-my-baby-girl-right-i'll-kill-you, the actual aggression dads can exhibit when their daughters break up or get broken up with... it's very telling IMO.
Men know that men are bad for women, and when outside men are trying to get access to their women, fathers are emboldened to be really aggressive. They know how bad men (and boys, since a lot of this dad-to-BF interfacing is going to happen around teenager-age) can be, and dads react this way because they don't want their daughters to be hurt/impregnated and abandoned/stuck in a horrible relationship. So that Dad Hostility is both a defense and an expression of helplessness - any sane father knows he can't prevent his daughter from having a relationship of her own, but he feels he owes it to her to act like a pitbull that is not really keen on this visitor when BF comes around to take you to the dance.
I guess the really sad part is that men have no problem appreciating the danger of other men when it's their wives, sisters, moms, or daughters on the line, but when it's unrelated women, the men kind of act like all's fair in love and war. So it follows that these same dads who threaten to kill your BF if he gets you pregnant out of wedlock... would themselves behave recklessly if they were in BF's position.
India genuinely did have the best metallurgy in the world (ie steel smelting) for over two millennia. They were producing high quality iron in relatively large quantities since the 1800s BCE.
It’s not just propaganda, their iron (“wootz steel”) was enormously desirable for its unmatched quality in medieval Europe.
They flat-out didn't. Just... the entire thing seems made up! Genuinely! The fucking cheek of them! They added in Wootz steel, with no sources except some random Indian man insisting that it was "well-known" - the actual Roman and Greek sources made no mention of it, except for that one Indian tribe was too broke to give any kind of gold to Alexander the Great, who accepted some steel ingots. Steel was hard to make, but was well-known and an export of several European kingdoms at the time - including Britain, surprisingly.
Then they jump forward in time to well past the use of steel in Europe and China, and start saying "YES SEE INDIANS EXPORTED STEEL INGOTS! WE WUZ STEELWORKERS" - as far as I could see, there wasn't a single piece of evidence for actual steelworking in India prior to 300 BC - up to 500 years after it was developed in Europe and a point in time where it was a regular part of life.
The Wikipedia article makes no mention of the fact that Europeans had invaded Greece under Alexander the Great - stating, bizarrely, that Europeans hadn't developed steel until the 1600s, and then, I followed up the one reference (made in 2019) to the "1800 BC steel" - they measured the Carbon-14 content of the steel. They didn't give samples to anyone else, of course, and nevermind that swords generally don't breath - nor do they use atmospheric carbon dioxide - and that every other artifact of the same material and design came from between 700 and 1700 AD.
The reasoning they used was that the blacksmith "probably used bamboo" and thus, the 3000 year difference is more likely. As opposed to dried peat, which was much more readily available and would produce that kind of number if used for carbon.
The actual examples of real artifacts they give are all from the Middle Ages onward, the earliest proven actual steelworks in India come from 1500AD onward, and the "Sri Lankan Monsoon Power" - you can't make steel with just a fucking cold blast furnace - upon further review, that's how I discovered the Ancient Greeks apparently had a lot going on in India and the Indians don't enjoy talking about it. There's a fucking lot of evidence for this.
The Romans were using steel swords by 300BC, by the way - literally all of this is just... 'jeet shit. The same guy who did the "Carbon-14 test on a fucking sword" was also the one to "prove" that the ancient Indians had cities and cultivated rice during the last Ice Age, 11,000 years ago, a full five thousand years before those lazy Chinkies got around to it.
Would you like to picture what this man looks like?
Wholeheartedly agree. Even if you're distressed and problematic (I know to God I was and am), you can still land a very good quality husband if you're willing to hold out and not just take the first offer you get.
If I remember my sex ed correct, you don't ovulate until (roughly) about two years after you start your period.
And that's when you start. Every woman is all over the place with that. Everyone is different, but the dicks online think every girl starts at thirteen.
I don't remember too well but I think I got mine in 7th grade, which would be 13 years. I would not have been physically prepared to have kids til like, age 20, and I wasn't psychologically ready til age 32. I was actually really scared of it for many many years.
Absolutely dreading the first time my child is sexually harassed by a stranger. The school runs its own private coach service to and from school, so they should be okay on the daily commute, but kids like to leave the house and exist while female in public.
If it makes you feel any better I don't remember outright sexual harassment until I was at least 19, and the biggest correlated factor wasn't sexual development or age, but public transit use. Basically, the less opportunity -> the less catcalling.
without going too much into the forbidden powders again, have you considered taking her out for practice with dangerous things? Anything which can get her to act more promptly and be less fearful would be handy, like maybe an air rifle.
So does fertility. I found out the hard way just happened and his generation x mom being one of 6 IS A DAMN WARNING IF HE SPITS IN YOUR YARD THERE WILL BE KIDS. Half of his cousins just happened. His mom just woke up with Irish triplets. Meanwhile my boomer mom has grand total of 1 sibling from parents with barely 5 years of education and had zero issues with the basis bitch birth control that everyone use in my home country pull out method.
@Doctor Love china population is declining and there horrifying statistics floating around showing population will halve if they keep the current thrend up with 1 kid per woman and sky high infertility due to pollution.
Tell me about it. My mom had good fertility at late-ish, and apparently so do I, cause I am pregnant again at 34 and I was not trying. And I got a note today that my HCG levels are over 4000. (Dr's comment: This is a high number, that is good.) And yes I intend to keep, I want 3 kids total
Tell me about it. My mom had good fertility at late-ish, and apparently so do I, cause I am pregnant again at 34 and I was not trying. And I got a note today that my HCG levels are over 4000. (Dr's comment: This is a high number, that is good.) And yes I intend to keep, I want 3 kids total
The Wikipedia article makes no mention of the fact that Europeans had invaded Greece under Alexander the Great - stating, bizarrely, that Europeans hadn't developed steel until the 1600s, and then, I followed up the one reference (made in 2019) to the "1800 BC steel" - they measured the Carbon-14 content of the steel. They didn't give samples to anyone else, of course, and nevermind that swords generally don't breath - nor do they use atmospheric carbon dioxide - and that every other artifact of the same material and design came from between 700 and 1700 AD.
Steel contains carbon, which per definition can be carbon-dated. I'm not a chemist so the details are beyond me but as a history enthusiast I can tell you that radiocarbon dating of metal tools is neither rare nor controversial. You can also measure the substrate surrounding the artifacts, since they're often found in middens.
The actual examples of real artifacts they give are all from the Middle Ages onward, the earliest proven actual steelworks in India come from 1500AD onward, and the "Sri Lankan Monsoon Power" - you can't make steel with just a fucking cold blast furnace - upon further review, that's how I discovered the Ancient Greeks apparently had a lot going on in India and the Indians don't enjoy talking about it. There's a fucking lot of evidence for this.
I don't know what to tell you, there are plenty of steel and cast iron artifacts found in India, starting from 1800BCE. Enough so that you can convincingly argue that ironworking was invented there rather than in Anatolia.
The Romans were using steel swords by 300BC, by the way - literally all of this is just... 'jeet shit. The same guy who did the "Carbon-14 test on a fucking sword" was also the one to "prove" that the ancient Indians had cities and cultivated rice during the last Ice Age, 11,000 years ago, a full five thousand years before those lazy Chinkies got around to it.
Nobody's saying steel was exclusive to India, or even that their high quality was unique, obviously iron was widely used in the iron age. The ice blanket never extended remotely that far south, India was tropical at that time just as it is today. It even has a recognisable coast line, apart from the Rama Setu, it's entirely plausible a relatively advanced settled civilisation existed there. If so they would have constructed their shelters from soft wood, the remains of which would be very hard to detect in that environment after that much time. But they did produce a lot more high-quality steel for export during the middle ages than any other region on the planet. Whether you believe in the wind-powered blast furnaces or not (I personally don't) is beside the point, the specifics of Roman concrete are similarly mysterious but its existence is equally little in doubt.
Don't let one kook and your racism blind you. India genuinely was quite impressive once, just as Baghdad was once the world's premier centre of learning. Times change and people change with them.
Steel contains carbon, which per definition can be carbon-dated. I'm not a chemist so the details are beyond me but as a history enthusiast I can tell you that radiocarbon dating of metal tools is neither rare nor controversial. You can also measure the substrate surrounding the artifacts, since they're often found in middens.
You can measure the substrate, but the actual chemistry of the carbon-14 is that it's at best, a stretch since swords don't breath. If that's the bar for evidence for steel - which contains carbon then there's definitely something amiss. It could be used if you were 110% sure that the source was charcoal that was produced at the same time.
You could measure the substrate around the furnace - maybe - but it wouldn't be enough to assess anything in clarity, and in this case, the actual dates are 700BC to 200BC.
Now that I finally found the original source, there is another clarification - the "carbon dated sword" was a completely different matter, and I still can't find the actual data for it. The 1800BC claim wasn't a sword. They found an Ironworks! (dated to 700BC at the earliest, and 300AD at the latest)
I don't know what to tell you, there are plenty of steel and cast iron artifacts found in India, starting from 1800BCE. Enough so that you can convincingly argue that ironworking was invented there rather than in Anatolia.
Convincingly for you, maybe, but absolutely not and I will now go into autistic detail as to why.
Firstly - iron and copper both existed as natural materials. Most has been taken, by humans, but it is a rare find in mines. Pure iron is not the same as steel. Pure iron is closer to bronze in terms of melting temperature and difficulty - in order to make steel, you need to solve two main issues - you need to be able to heat the air up, because cold-air furnaces can only reach ~1000C (enough for iron or bronze, but not for steel) and you need to find something which can reliably handle 1400C. So the claim that someone is making large amounts of steel is a big claim. Even in the modern era, if you told me you cooked up some steel in your garden, I'd need some proof.
The actual evidence in the original claim is:
"Evidence for iron-working included slag and iron artefacts such as a nail, arrowhead, knife and a chisel Radiocarbon dates for the iron bearing deposits range between 1400 and 800 cal BCE."
Now in the site itself - "iron bearing deposits" - the deposits of pottery which ranged from 1450BC to 300AD.
Don't let one kook and your racism blind you. India genuinely was quite impressive once, just as Baghdad was once the world's premier centre of learning. Times change and people change with them.
No, no, I was blinded before because I didn't realise it was Indians who were making the claim. The entire thing was believable, in the same way that Baghdad is believable, because others were corroborating it.
This is literally the work of one very dedicated Indian man. Firstly, the actual date is exaggerated - the "pottery band" is 1450BC in any other site. They just added in 400 years for 'jeet magical reasons. Secondly, the connecting evidence is from a site which had multiple layers of sherds from different time periods.
Literally all of their own evidence (https://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/iron-ore) shows one example of anything iron being made in the area - the furnaces - which were dated to 700-300AD. Assuming that they were from the furnaces, which were more reliably dated to, at best, 700BC, then that would mean all of the iron as probably from that time period.
>Tentatively indeed
They found pottery, found a furnace - dated the furnace and found that it was an appropriate time. Then the 'jeetisms kicked in, and they decided that rather than assume the iron furnaces - which they could carbon date - was reliable, they assumed that the pottery shards and their dating was superior. And - what luck - the region was the only region in India where that particular type of pottery stopped being made in 1200BC! Everywhere else has it right up until 500BC!
There is literally no evidence for the claim that exactly one region of India operates on a different time scale, literally just:
>Trust me, I'm an Archaeologist. Utter Pradesh is special. While every other part of India continued to use this kind of pottery for another 750 years, we stopped. Don't ask for evidence, you have my word.
Dates were, for everywhere else in India: ~1250BC for the "Period 1" - the earliest band, and ~500BC for the second band. The third band peaked around the time of Alexander the Great.
This dude was just making up numbers to sound cool, and has been taken at his word despite giving absolutely no evidence for this abrupt, ground-shattering change of dates.
Also, the Indus Valley civilisation seems to be greatly exaggerated in its scope and scale. There is a surprising lack of actual findings or any real evidence/corroboration, particularly for those found East of the river. Literally everything just comes down to one guy, usually this guy, saying something and then endless 'jeets quoting him.
I don't normally do archaeology, but I do focus on the industrial stuff for "inspiration" - none of these practices make any sense, and all of them seem to take enormous leaps in judgement which would not be allowed by anyone else. You can't just say "this region was different" - "Why?" - "Because this way, we can claim we invented steel" - all of it, no matter which way I go, comes back to this same fucking guy.
The reason why they chose these particular dates is, again, extremely suspect. There's no evidence from radiocarbon dating - there is the assumption that the Akkadians were talking about Pajeets when they were talking about the other nations they traded with.
No other mention of the "Indus Valley Civilisation" being that old seems to exist. What's even more alarming is that no evidence of any major cities were found when the Persians, and later the Greeks, invaded. By the time they were actually encountered by reliable sources, Indians sounded very familiar.
As in, wearing sandals, mistreating elephants and bringing wooden sticks into battles.
Here is an accurate representation of what the Persians and Greeks said about Indians:
Except without a shirt. That's literally the only difference, loincloth, stick, sandals and abusing elephants are all the same.
This is literally from the likely time period. There is no ancient Indian civilisation, they were always like this! They were always exactly the same.
And it gets even more sad for them. The "Yona" - the Indian variation of the Persian word, Ioana - the Greeks. The Indians haven't only been colonised by Europeans just that one time.
Not only Europeans, but the Semites too. There's more writing in Greek and Aramaic in these supposedly Indian buildings than in any native language. This is ostensibly because the Greeks were their neighbours, under Alexander, but this goes... a lot deeper into India than you might suspect.
This is from a site in Pakistan, right on the border with India. It was built by the Ancient Greeks.
The city of Junagadh is an ancient name - originally from Ioanagad - "City of the Greeks"
Infact, the ancient fucking books of Buddhism clearly talk about the Greek Monks. The ancient Buddhists were white dudes from Greece. All of these grand monuments were Greek. I had genuinely never learned any of this until now - the city which Alexander founded in modern Afghanistan continued to grow, and apparently converted to Buddhism - and then sent 30,000 monks to Sri Lanka.
They even had another 300 movie - this time against Pajeets.
I found it really coincidental that the Greeks invaded a region, which Indians insist is really old, trust me but we can't really prove that and that the ironworks actually line up perfectly with the invasion of the Greeks - who evidently stayed there for a much longer time period than the Indians would have you believe.
Welp. I have now convinced myself that the ancient Indian civilisation is "wewuzzing" a colony of Greeks who lived in Afghanistan, Pakistan and later moved across into India, proper. There's a LOT of Greek ruins in Western India - most of them predating the Romans.
I knew someone would eventually point out it was off-topic, but I figured we'd get at least a page
In all seriousness I really wouldn't mind a second DMZ for off-topic discussions, if the mods or Null would be willing to approve one. It's nice not having every single page get filled with moids seething and screeching about who they "wouldn't even rape" or whatever other one thought every single one of them feels the need to inject in every. single. fucking. post. for 30 fucking pages
I don't normally do archaeology, but I do focus on the industrial stuff for "inspiration" - none of these practices make any sense, and all of them seem to take enormous leaps in judgement which would not be allowed by anyone else. You can't just say "this region was different" - "Why?" - "Because this way, we can claim we invented steel" - all of it, no matter which way I go, comes back to this same fucking guy.
It all goes back to the fundamental issue with Indian men, and it’s that they’re obsessed with saving face wherever possible.
The same reason why they’re still pissy about the Mughal Empire and the British Empire— it’s all about saving face for their own nation’s inadequacies. That, and they’re forever pissed off that the Muslims who ruled during the Mughal days forced them to take baths (yes, that is real).
Indian women are usually more humble about their origins, and usually willing to admit when they’re wrong. Their men however are completely fine with making shit up to appear better than they actually are.
I have seen that here and there, but I've also seen that ovulation can start, with respect to first period, any time from before first period to 6-12 months after, and also that ovulation may not occur every cycle in the first year or so after the first period.
And I believe average age is 12-13, but I've certainly known girls to start periods as young as 11*and as old as 15-16, all healthy.
*I know it can start younger, a d the trend is down in age, just relating personal experience/observation across a couple generations
I don't remember too well but I think I got mine in 7th grade, which would be 13 years. I would not have been physically prepared to have kids til like, age 20, and I wasn't psychologically ready til age 32. I was actually really scared of it for many many years.
I kind of meant it as an argument against the whole "if it bleeds it breeds" spiel. Case in point: I didn't start till 16 myself. But everyone else start earlier
I kind of meant it as an argument against the whole "if it bleeds it breeds" spiel. Case in point: I didn't start till 16 myself. But everyone else start earlier
Yeah. I think because I was so young (and I don't remember being a massive outlier, just 'unlucky') that whole trope you describe physically nauseates me. I hear it and to me it doesn't mean kids of 15, 16 - to me it instantly means kids at eight or nine.
Child sexual abuse is one of those things that no, it's not banter, no it's not edgy, joking about it makes you a nutter. It's one of those things that cannot be funny.
It's the one thing I have ever put a dinner guest out for. To be fair, my husband was already out of his seat and moving to gently lever his workmate out of the door.
Indian women are usually more humble about their origins, and usually willing to admit when they’re wrong. Their men however are completely fine with making shit up to appear better than they actually are.
I think you're giving female jeets too much credit, It's pretty much common sense that women of any race tend to be less retarded and violent than their male counterparts but Indian ones are hardly any different. In fact I think theyre probably the second most brainwashed ones next to arabs. Sure, you'll read about some of them beating gang rapists to death but for every 10 sensible femjeets there the 50 deranged ones who shame rape victims, marry off their daughters to old men, and participate in infant femicide. 1st world sympathy for 3rd world women is like a trojan horse, and if you dont separate them from their culture early enough they'll just turn wherever they inhabit into how it was back home. Not worth the risk.
The same reason why they’re still pissy about the Mughal Empire and the British Empire— it’s all about saving face for their own nation’s inadequacies. That, and they’re forever pissed off that the Muslims who ruled during the Mughal days forced them to take baths (yes, that is real).
The ancient Indian term for "Muslim" was "Yavana" - the Muslims showed up, and the Indians - who had just gotten over a thousand fucking years of Greeks - got it again for another thousand years.
India doesn't have a history or any indigenous culture, it's just a mash-up of, in their own words, "Slaves and Masters" for thousands of years.
Indian women are usually more humble about their origins, and usually willing to admit when they’re wrong. Their men however are completely fine with making shit up to appear better than they actually are.
It's nice not having every single page get filled with moids seething and screeching about who they "wouldn't even rape" or whatever other one thought every single one of them feels the need to inject in every. single. fucking. post. for 30 fucking pages
