I hadn't heard of the "Birthday Paradox" before you mentioned it your comment, but your description of it isn't quite right. It's not that half the people in a group of 23 will share a birthday, it's that there is a 50-50 chance that two people in the group will have the same birthday. Still, very interesting and I learned something today!
That's how i understood GP's "half of such groups" statement - as a 50-50 chance (half of all groups, not half of the people in the group). But maybe I was biased because I heard of "Birthday Paradox" before.
Not sure why you're being downvoted for pointing this out. She was responsible for "their" home. Not the tens of thousands of households across the empire. There was also a sentence where the scholar being interviewed estimates that women made up to 20% of Mongolian armies of that era. That just seems flatout unbelievable.
he is being downvoted for the same reason this article exists, pc culture doesn't like being corrected. There is a war against historical accuracy for the sake of adding in women or random races that wouldn't be there.
The annoying thing is that it makes no sense to do this because there are plenty of non-male or non-white leaders to pick from anyway.
My favorite empire is the Ajuuran sultanate that was a very powerful african sultanate in modern day somalia. It traded as far as china and it had many victories over great powers like portugal.
A great female leader that actually existed was queen boudica, one of the greatest celtic anti-roman rebels. She led her people and dealt a lot of damage to the roman invaders before she inevitably lost to the chads that are the roman legions.
Rather than blackwash or add in random women we can just look to the parts of history that already contain that.
I think they’re basing that claim on some buried women exhibiting archery and horseback riding strength in their skeletal structures. I doubt they routinely fought in the army, given the lack of contemporary accounts observing any women in the Mongol army.
This contrasts with, say, the ancient Sarmatians, where we see female burials with actual weapons of war, and have contemporary accounts that women did fight extensively in battles. There, a figure of 20% would be roughly accurate.
I don't think Facebook's "... young, liberal staff" is going anywhere. They have experienced the power that comes with successfully shifting a global organization's culture, mission and product. Unfortunately, there are only so many hours in the day, and doing so hasn't given them enough time to actually do their jobs. The people that are left don't possess the tools to create and build anything of moment because that's not what they're good at and frankly, that's not why they were hired.
Facebook losing its young, liberal staff could be the best thing that has happened to the company in a long time, but that's not what's going to happen.
I think the use of the word "liberal" may be leaving an opening for misinterpretation. The real worry is that good, talented people leave/refrain from applying, regardless of ideological outlook or label.
Do you mean traditional over-the-air television? Because I'm absolutely certain companies like Netflix, HBO and Disney tailor content to influence your behavior. Haven't you ever compared the Netflix recommendations for your account with anyone else's? And yes, "TV actually creates content themselves", but that means you'll be exposed to whatever agenda and viewpoints the stakeholders of the production company that creates the content what to promote, and only that viewpoint.
Netflix recommendations is one of the reasons I’m not worried about tailored content. Netflix apparently have zero idea about what shows or films I like. Either that or they don’t have them. All I want is fantasy removed from sci-fi, explosions, spaceships and boobs.
It almost seems as if you believe you can't be lied to by the people you agree with. In this case, we'll call them "vaxxers" since you seem to believe only "anti-vaxers" are capable of duplicity.
Nope, because that's the beauty of science. I personally run on a "trust, but verify" basis: science allows society to come together and verify many aspects of claims: can it be done, can it be replicated, what's the likelihood of the replication actually measuring a real effect, etc.
"Vaxxers", as you have so put it, (or as I like to call them, normal human beings) have reached a level of proof that vaccines are safe, and that, specifically, the COVID-19 vaccines currently in deployment are several magnitudes safer than, say, contracting COVID-19 itself.
"Anti-Vaxxers", however, have (un?)intentionally proved that vaccines work, performing one of the largest voluntary human drug trials in history as the placebo group. Their sacrifice shall, hopefully, not be forgotten (lest we repeat it).
Well, any ISIS content on the platform could be considered recruitment material. If in the content of the video no crime has been committed, YouTube would not be justified in banning ISIS recruitment videos or any of their content.
A lot of large companies in banking or insurance for example, don't understand or seem to realize they are going to have to execute as if they are tech companies.
Kanban in Action by Marcus Hammarberg and Joakim Sundén is a good introduction. In this book, the guiding principles of Kanban are presented almost like parables as the authors introduce you to their fictional team "Kabaneros".
I'm in my 40s, so based on the American depictions of Australian culture in the 80's and early 90's, that "belief in freedom, mateship and irreverence of authority" matches the impression of the average Australian I've held ever since. Of course you can't believe everything you see on TV and in movies. Still, this acceptance of authoritarian governance is a shocking turn.
