> To me this change to start with the more significant number makes sense. But what led to this change in numbering and when did it take place? Did it follow a longer debate? Was there a transition period?

You could argue we're in a stalled transition period. The teens have not been switched - it "should" be teenthir instead of thirteen etc.

>Could a similar transition happen to other languages like german, where at the moment a "two-and-twenty"-style numbering is in place?

I don't see why not, in principle. Some German books even recommended that in the early days of adoption of the Arabic numerals (which are the reason for the confusion - they go in the opposite direction of original Germanic pronunciation of numbers). Martin Luther wasn't a fan though, and that was probably the deciding factor. It's unlikely anyone will decide to switch it around anytime soon, but not impossible.

The books weren't originally books, but were stories printed in Strand magazine and dramatically increased the sales of the magazine as a result. These stories were published in different years under broad categories such as The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes or The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, so the "The Adventure of the Crooked Man" was published as The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes (the second series of these) and it was the 8th adventure in that series or 2 8.

Given a few base assumptions, and using PV=nRT the most likely scenario is minor to major bends, maybe ruptured ear drums and things from rapid pressure drop.

The subject chamber couldn't develop a full vacuum, but a ratio of chamber to plunger volume. The volume would change the temp would drop a little and the pressure would drop a lot. Reverse it and pressure and temp go up. But if the pressure drop was high enough the nitrogen in solution in ylur blood would come out but the pressure rise again wouldn't be enough to make go back in solution.

The bends are painful and starts in places like the joints but can mean death if severe enough.

Fully depends on what medium they're in and if a part of you is stuck. Generally it wouldn't be ripped apart though, you would be squished when the plunger pushed down.

The old saw is that a language is a dialect with an army. Basically, there's a lot of overlap between the two, and the difference isn't so much technical as it is political/social.

Neither “dialect” nor “language” are strictly defined concepts in linguistics. The classical criterion of recognizing dialects is mutual intelligibility (the varieties are clearly different but people can understand each other), but it’s not entirely unproblematic. “Language” is usually recognized on the basis of some political, cultural or historical significance.

The current approach in linguistics is to leave these things somewhat ambiguous and just note different varieties and their relationship between each other (approach that glottolog takes). Some have been advocating for “doculects” - identifying a variety on the basis of the publication or data that describes it. In the end, one can come up with multiple different measures for what’s a dialect and what’s a language, many of them useful in own way. ,

I think, usually the criterion is mutual understandability, but there are exceptions like chinese, where some linguists argue, the dialects should be considered different languages, because people from different provinces can't understand each other, but they are still considered dialects because of the political implications.

Sapiens, by historian Yuval Noah Harari, plays pretty fast and loose with the science. The Dawn of Everything by anthropologist David Graeber and archaeologist David Wengrow has a similar vibe with better references - they still make a lot of speculations, but they're explicit about when they're doing so.

During my first year at university, I studied Sociology amd Anthropology as an outside module. We had to discuss a book within the field out of a list, and I chose Alice Goffman's On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City. I read the whole thing in three days because I enjoyed it that much (and obviously, knowing more about the book would help in my exam).

A lot of the facts have since slipped out of my brain, but I very much remember being enthralled at the time, so I'd highly recommend it.

Specifically for Social Anthropology, I'd recommend "Watching the English" by Kate Fox - written by a social anthropologist who's the daughter of a social anthropologist talking about social anthropology - admittedly, in the context of the English so in that sense narrow, but covers the concepts of social anthropology very well.

Small Places -- Large Issues by Eriksen is a great intro to the field. For something more specific (and kind of mind blowing) I suggest Stone Age Economics which is about the economics of hunter-gatherers.

Thank you all for the suggestions, I’ll have to check them out!

Homo deus (follow up to sapiens), and blueprint were both really cool books as well. Guns, germs, and steel is next on my list. Supposed to be really good.

And a bit different, but the foundation series by Asimov is a more light hearted fun sci fi series with heavy sociology/anthro basis.

PBS Eons has a video that discusses fossil evidence for the anatomy required to make human speech. Essentially, about 3 million years ago.

[When We First Talked] (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eCW0zyDGuXc)

Is there a way to know that?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Oldest known language is Sumerian and that was more than 5000 years ago.

Prior to that I would say it's not possible to know since it was probably never written down.

[removed]

>This makes sense to me as printing money dilutes the value of currency, making everything more expensive across the board rather than one specific sector.

So, this relationship between money supply and inflation is definitely correct and likely a major driver of current inflation. However, money supply is not always the primary driver of inflation there are other drivers that can at times be more or less important.

Now, Dr. Friedman certainly believed that money supply was the primary cause of inflation. Though reading his most important work written with Ms. Schwartz he was not as dogmatic as you might see on old TV clips. Check out this bigger picture Wikipedia graph and you can see that the correlation between changes in money supply and inflation is not straightforward even when you consider delayed effects. Certainly if it were a simple relation then an independent central bank would have an easy time keeping inflation under control.

So, what else can drive inflation? Along with the supply of money another very important driver is the supply of things to buy with that money. For instance, if the supply of oil decreases and the supply of money were to stay the same, because oil is pretty necessary for our current society we would experience inflation. The bank of Australia has a broader primer on inflation that has more detail than I can get into here including the important aspect of peoples' behavior. Today both money supply, as you noted, but also many, supply, shocks, are driving inflation upwards quickly.

Good news: a market correction is definitely not the only way to reduce inflation. There are plenty of examples but a recent one is inflation rates dropped quite low through the 2010s with generally decent economic growth. Bad news: market downturns don't always bring down inflation either. Central banks are currently trying to reduce inflation without causing a major downturn. It is not an easy task, however, and there are many drivers of inflation that are out of the control of the reserve banks and governments.

You don't have to be an authoritarian nation to have large discretionary expenditure. Take for example the immense US expenditure in the military industrial complex. None of it is subject to market forces, yet macroeconomic modelling still captures it.

[removed]

[removed]

Yes, second language learning difficulty is measured relative to the first language.

The US DLI and state department difficulty rankings are based on the number of hours for an English speaker to learn the target language; it's different for speakers of other languages. For instance Korean speakers have little trouble with Japanese, despite these being category IV (hardest) on the DLI scale.

Factors that make languages easy or hard are vocabulary, grammar, reading and writing system, and cultural cues (and a few others that I can't recall at the moment). Category IV languages have differences from English in all of these categories.

English and German share a significant percentage of cognates, and going back and forth between those is generally much easier than pairing English with other languages. Same situation between the romance languages.

I did some research a while ago with translation out of English into three different languages: Spanish, Arabic, and Japanese. We had groups of translators translate the same six texts into their languages, and then we also translated the six texts with groups of machine translation systems for each language pair. We found that the groups of translators tended to translate something into their language from English in increasingly diverse ways the more “distant” a language got from English (Spanish being closest, then Arabic, and then Japanese being the most “distant”), meaning, for example, let’s say 6 out of 20 Spanish translators translated a word differently into Spanish, but then 10 out of 20 Arabic translators translated the same word differently, and maybe 14 out of 20 Japanese translators translated the same word differently (things were obviously more messy than this but there were clear statistical patterns).

The crazy thing is that the groups of machine translation systems followed the same pattern. Those machine translation systems (neural networks) were trained on tons of existing translations and show evidence of a pattern in translator behavior on a very large scale. It was hard to compare our results with existing research (linguistic “distance” is a slippery concept that I really only saw addressed in one large-scale study; I’ll try to find this study later tomorrow to put on here), but I feel like our work was an empirical estimate or indication of the relative distance of several languages from one language (not from each other but just from that one other language, in this case English).

Good question!

First off, there never was a barter system in any significant way (ie, "I've got one goat and you've got some clogs and we exchange them"). Rather, the assumption that there always must have been a sort of market exchange of goods is modern society projecting its own beliefs onto the past.

In the example above, most tribal societies wouldn't see it as you owning a goat and me owning some clogs. Instead, they would like see us as having (or having access to) a goat and some clogs. If the tribe had things available to it, members of the tribe wouldn't be excluded from them. Concepts like private property, individual ownership and the pursuit of maximizing individual wealth as we know them today are much, much more recent.

One thing to note about most ideas of Anarchist society is that it's very communal (which may seem counterintuitive to people who think anarchy = chaos). The idea is that people work for the benefit of all (which includes themselves) rather than for themselves (which may exclude others).

You're right that such a system would likely gain some efficiency by quantifying labor or goods and services, but that doesn't require money. The key tenet of money that you're missing is that some individual or group owns that abstraction of value (and others do not own it). In a well-functioning anarchist society, the idea is that you wouldn't pay for food or housing or healthcare, for example; rather, these things would be available to you because the members of the society work to provide them to all according to their need.

Obviously there are lots of complexities and uncertainties that such a society would need to navigate, but the main thrust is that if we abolish private property, there is no longer a role for money to play.

No, bit in fringe cases it is still considered "missing link".

Mainstream idea is simply time and interbreeding. Geneticists can trace neanderthal DNA in modern humans which helped strengthen the claim that there never was a missing link at all. It was all compatibility and time like any other animal on the planet.

There are those who make the claim that we where "helped" but they usually have everything they are tied to their viewpoint, much like flat-earthers. Ignoring any proof that doesn't support their theory no matter how well tested and explained.

The market does set the (long-run) price for money.

The price of money is the real interest rate which is the nominal interest rate (managed by the fed) minus inflation (determined by the market). If the fed tried to perpetually lower the nominal rate, this will lead to higher inflation (assuming nothing else is changing) as the market restores the "natural" real interest rate.

The reason we do this is because highly variable inflation in very costly. For example, it makes it risky to lend money (as you don't know if the money will be worth much less when you get paid back due to a large bout of inflation) which makes it costly for businesses to raise capital and depresses the economy.

By manipulating the nominal rate so that it "absorbs" all the market fluctuations in demand for money (which cause variation in the real rate), the fed is able to maintain a low, stable inflation level and eliminate this problem. This is why you will sometimes hear about the fed's "inflation target" and why we find it optimal to have an entity managing the money supply.

Radar astronomy is the closest equivalent I'm aware of...you basically send out a radio pulse and get the reflection back. I don't think you could make it work effectively with visible light, the amount of illumination (and therefore energy) you would need would be huge.

[removed]

Within the solar system, besides Earth, Mars and Venus.

Outside of the solar system, GLIESE 667CC and KEPLER-22B. There are a fair number of other contenders but we just don't know...yet.

Earth, heh.

Aside from that, in the solar system I'd put the best odds on subsurface oceans in some of the outer moons or deep in the crust on Mars.

One of the reasons is you can't do controlled experiments in macroeconomics. Can't start with 3 identical countries and try them with higher, normal and lower interbank rates, while making sure everything else is the same.

You don't solve it, you can only manage it. Same reason it's called as Dismal Science. As long as we don't solve first the mystery of human brain, or we don't act like robots behaving in certain ways there will never be a perfect economy. Also, the economy is much more complex than having winners/losers. There's such thing as win-win situations such as renewable energy or lose-lose situations like natural disasters. Only Technology can "solve" or compromise with our economic problems.

During history different kind of economic systems have been used, and we have now in our modern times found one which is until what we know the most effective in being managed, but also keeping up with the enormous economical growth.

It is that managing part which is the most important part, and you can see it fall apart the moment it does not happen. Like with corruption, bubbles, internal trading/communication and monopolies.

Economists all over the world are always trying to find improvements to the current model, or are even trying to create a new model. But a new model would require a mass transition which certainly not everybody would want or be prepared for

Probably as soon as it a) could see and b) realized what was happening.

[removed]

You should provide the context where you found them if you can, I or someone else might be able to help out more in that case.

"Darwinism" and "Darwinian" aren't really something I would think of as technical terms but are usually used to refer to some form of evolution involving natural selection....so if I were to hazard a guess, I would say that probably what they are talking about is something like a genetic algorithm, so maybe searching for information on that will help.

We would call that a "cue" in psychology, although that term is not specific to the visual domain.

Quite possible. Deictic reference (words that refer to people or places related to some universal viewpoint, usually the speaker) is central, very commonly used function of the human language. It would make sense that the language started with the desire to express these kind of relations.

Of course, there is no way to prove it as we have no way of knowing what the earliest languages looked like. I’m sure however it had a word that sounded something like “ma” or “pa” and referred to a close person or group of people.

The one that goes, “There’s a place called France where the naked ladies dance”? It was made up for the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair.

As far as I know, the demarcation problem has not been solved which makes answering this question "correctly" impossible.

That being said, (modern) economics is typically referred to as as "social science" and operates how I expect most people expect a science to operate. Namely, formulating hypotheses and models, testing them using data, and throwing out the theories that turn out to be wrong.

The process is, of course, much messier than a physical science like chemistry or physics for many reasons. The largest is that it is unfeasible and/or unethical to run many controlled experiments that one might want to run.

Same question can be asked for politics.

If you say is the economy a science the answer would be: NO

If you say is the parliament or congress a science the answer would be: NO

But if you would ask is the reasoning behind certain actions, the way of working/thinking, the way of policy building, the way of managing, the different ideas and concepts in economics and politics are those science?: the answer would be: Yea

While I can not say a specific course, some YouTubers are pretty close to get a basic understanding of economics and everything that evolves around it.

Economics explained for example

No, a large percentage of muscles acting on fingers and wrist are in forearm

That is certainly a possibility.

We have seen in history that even the smallest differences in geographical location and population could have created different diseases. If we indeed find life on another planet then there is a big change that they have their own world of diseases, parasites and microorganisms

Maybe dolphins. There's a video I watched in a linguistics class that was investigating dolphin communication using dolphins that were trained to perform in dolphin shows with various hand signals from their trainers. They had a hand signal for "together" that typically was used to have the dolphins coordinate jumping out of the water or something similar at the same time. So the trainers would use hand signals to say "do a flip together" and the two dolphins would time it so they were flipping at the same time. Pretty cool but not anything crazy. They had another hand signal that basically told the dolphin to "make up a trick", when they used this hand signal typically the dolphin would do some kind of flip or jump or whatever they felt like doing. In this video they had 2 dolphins, and they combined hand signals to tell them "make up a trick together". You can see in the video the two dolphins swim down to the bottom of the pool, squeak at each other a bit, and then come up and do the exact same thing at the exact same time.

I think communication becomes language when you can use it to express new ideas, and this is the only example I've seen of that obviously displayed in animals. I'll see if I can find the video, it is really cool.

[removed]

It's just like learning any other language. It's got grammar, vocabulary, and a writing system. What kind of answer are you looking for?

Learning Hebrew ;)

I was lucky to have had an opportunity to study Old Testament Hebrew in school. It was in part what got me interested in theoretical linguistics.

There are political/cultural/history questions - in both cases it depends very much on the specific context.

They've had pretty easy contact with other countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea. In later eras, they developed along with Ancient Greeks and Romans, so there were plenty interaction between the cultures.

The Ptolemy line, from which Cleopatra VII (the famous Cleopatra) descended, had partial Greek ancestry.

Both, quite obviously. For context, look at the shape of our teeth and the subsequent food types said shapes excel at masticating.

[removed]

Cause it will run out and there is no way to produce more, unless long periods of time are involved.

Helium on earth was produced over billions of years by decay of elements, such as uranium.

Earth-helium's final destination is space, it just sticks around places like natural gas wells, then canisters, then party balloons, etc. But one way or the other Helium will end up in space. That's cool.

It being very very finite makes it pretty cool, too.

Let me first start with the lobbyist part. This is part is mostly seen in systems where this is ingrained in political culture. The Netherlands for example has 1 time a year where lobbyists can go and talk to the political parties and representatives about their ideals. The rest of the year it can be seen as political fraud if handled in certain ways.

The USA Political system has a large portion of it ingrained in its economical standards. This means that it is not only ingrained but seen as normal by a lot of people, and certainly does who are in power or benefit from it. Lobbying is also part of our economical systems due to the influence on production these huge conglomerates have.

“Why haven’t we figured out a proper form of government”

I think the answer to that can be pretty short. People are and will always think different of things. If you benefit from something, then that system si great. If you do not benefit from it the system is terrible. There will always be a divide in race, class and wealth which influences our progression in political thinking

No, while there is some proof to say that he encouraged or even managed a insurrection on the 6th of January. We can’t really say that he is a “serial insurrectionist. It was as some political scientists call it a populist wave. Trump won the election due to a bad opponent and a lot of uncertainty knowing Obama would be gone, the wars in the Middle East not going great, economic dissatisfaction (even though the economy was largely fine) and China on the rise. But after those 4 years he lost immediately to Joe Biden, and the republicans even began to keep their distance, which says a lot about how “trump was the Republican Party”

[removed]

Because it would be as tiring as COVID to hear it on the news everyday.

The DOJ and the Biden administration are certainly NOT ignoring these kinds of problems because they are crucial in governing our modern states and economic systems. They just don’t feel like sharing every single detail, every single plan and everything single procedure with the masses. Because the masses have a bad record when it comes to reacting to stuff which they don’t fully understand or have a really strong but useless opinion about

[removed]

Physics (the particle physics part) is the behavior of elementary particles.

Chemistry is the behavior atoms made of elementary particles interacting with each other via electric charge.

Cell Biology is the behavior of a big stew of hideously complex chemicals in bags of water.

Organismal biology is the behavior of millions of those bags of chemical water all stuck together.

Ecology is the behavior of millions of those organisms interacting across the surface of the earth.

Economics is like ecology, but you are looking at all the intelligent organisms, who are much more behaviorally complex and who occasionally do things like read your economics papers and alter their own behavior in response.

It's no wonder it's complicated!

Economics has no good of its own. It's just a series of ideas.

These are really burial mounds, tombs or mausoleums rather than true pyramids, terming them pyramids have led some people to make unfounded claims about their origin and inhabitants.