When I collapse and unable to move, how long will it take before my cat begins to eat my body?

Also, these fuckers.

Homotherium hunted large game through persistent hunting and not ambush like other big cats. They hunted in packs and were able to hunt across large distance using their keen day time eye sight.

Well, speak of the devil.

I’m going to block this account as well. Finding my comment buried deep in a discussion yet again and feeling compelled to jump in with the same snarky condescension is exactly why I don’t want to interact with you. Your reliance on hostility, bad-faith caricatures, and aggressive profanity to “win” a performance is why I blocked you in the first place. By setting up a false binary where any attempt to discuss specific historical structures is automatically labeled a “noble savage” trope, you created a framework that leaves no room for actual historical specificity or nuance. There was never room for a genuine conversation.

To be clear for anyone genuinely curious about this historiographical distinction: resisting reductive materialism is not an assertion of moral innocence or ‘noble savagery.’ It is a recognition of historical contingency and structural logic. Human violence is real, but it is not a uniform mechanical reflex. Kinship-based warfare and state-sponsored, capitalist settler-colonialism operate under fundamentally different cultural schemas and institutional logics. Recognizing that culture actively shapes how human societies utilize power and resources rather than treating all humans as uniform cogs in a deterministic equation is standard social theory.

If you are not PugJesus and happen to see his point and the errors I made, I’m very open to hearing them. Please do take the time to understand my interpretive frame. I think I’ve carefully situated it such that it doesn’t preclude the possibility of this happening, but recognizes the role of culture in providing a mitigating factor. I just ask that you engage in direct discussion and assume a modicum of good faith on my part. It is something I take seriously.

Here are some thinkers and movements who have influenced my views: The Cultural Turn: Thinkers who argue that culture is not merely a passive byproduct of an economic base, but an active, creative force that shapes human behavior and historical outcomes on its own terms. If they made any major mistake, it was that there was no theory making.

Logics of History by William Sewell Jr: He critiques the radical particularism of the “cultural turn” while rejecting mechanical materialism. Sewell bridges the gap by arguing that historical events can be bracketed to reveal how Schemas (cultural logics/rules) and Resources (material power) dialectically interact to transform social structures over time. If there’s anything I would want anyone to walk away with, its the understanding and value of bracketing when doing history.

Antonio Gramsci: His cultural hegemony notes that cultural frameworks, ideas, and “common sense” actively shape material realities and must be engaged with as an independent site of struggle.

Bertell Ollman: Develops the idea that social relations are a web of internal relations where the individual, culture, and material conditions co-constitute each other simultaneously.

Ernst Bloch: He rejected linear material determinism, showing that humans live in overlapping cultural temporalities that prevent consciousness from simply “mirroring” the immediate economic base.

When it comes to doing history, I reject predetermined trajectories and defend culture as an active, open-ended variable. Humans are universally bound by material realities, their cultural systems dictate how they respond to those realities, making historical development fundamentally open-ended rather than mechanically predictable.

20$ says they tried to fuck during class.

The limited interaction I had with him was him coming into a conversation between me and another commentator a level deep into one of his posts. He came in hot, dismissive, and condescending towards me. When I pointed it out, his response boiled down to, “Your bad take deserves it”. I tried to clarify my position and it became clear that anything I said wouldn’t soften his judgement. I ended up blocking him because it wasn’t worth my time. But it left me effected.

Bad faith debates aren’t about the argument and, in this case, ended up being about a personality

Daisy chained vcr watch parties.

In principle, being the preferred world currency and reserve currency means that Treasury bonds are a safe way to build their reserves while gaining interest. This keeps the American dollar and the American led world relevant. In other words, if America goes down, so will you. This also gives the US a lot of coersive leverage over developing nations to exploit their land and labor. This means that the core of the US empire gets access to cheap resources and labor. What the US gets is highly malleable power.

I had to scroll to far to see the actual answer. I get that people hate the answer, but this is the answer.

It references the OP.

The max homework score

The values aren’t a score. They normalized the average score to 100 for non-AI in both homework and exam. Then noted the deviation. People using AI to get very high scores (130% of the average) were tank the test (40% of the average) six months later.

This is the main confusion. I had to scroll to find this and every other comment was confused by the axis. Can you edit and add this to the post?

I scrub the linked paper and pretty sure this is the graph they are using.

Nevermind.

I can do this in 3. Can you make sure it’s White to Mate in 2 - Composition by Walter Pulitzer? When I search for it, I get the following board.

Kxf3

People have been misusing this template for as long as I’ve seen it. I don’t know why, but I’ve seen people write different things for the first and last person. This one, at least, doesn’t have that. What are the othee one offs?

Such a good book. Just started book 2 this week. There’s a deep sadness and yearning through it.

And capitalism relies too much on people being selfish, lazy and stupid sooooo… It’s working?

I can’t actually answer why they don’t set a hard limit of how much they will let some one accumulate or as for why they didn’t use coops. Both of these are counterfactuals that would be difficult even if I knew all the internal discussions. For example, you’d have to look closely at Deng’s policies and the subsequent three represents during the early 2000s to see what the discussion around coops was. Hard to say what the thinking was that precluded coops from the discussion.

It’s easier to say what they are doing and the policies they are enacting. I believe they have a goal of reducing inequality with a goal of a Gini index of .35 by 2035. They are focusing on a common prosperity goal. This has led to increased donations and contributions from the wealthy to social causes. With the common prosperity project, they hope to increase the middle class and reduce the rural-urban divide as well. I think there are several other goals.

I don’t see setting a hard limit on whether or not one is a billionaire contributing to these goals and then runs the risk of creating resentment of a particular class that the party needs to grow their level of prosperity.

Edit: Prior to the 90s, there government supported state-owned and collective enterprises. But they weren’t growing quick enough to meet the needs of the CPC.

Meanwhile, the growing number of entrepreneurs were gaining power, but no access to representation. So the CPC decided to bring them in to the party. This would reduce the likeliness of a counter revolution.

Theoretically, coops struggled with massive, capital-intensive investments. They can’t scale or absorb risk because their capital is in the form of worker’s equity.

When coops fail, it can be doubly devastating. Workers lose their jobs and equity when the firm goes bankrupt. Just as bad, though, there can be a prolonged declined as the coops would go under they would slash their pay to keep the dying firm alive.

Coops seem great when the economic engine is humming along, but if you are looking for rapid growth, you need large capital investments and the ability to fail quickly or massively succeed.