Mainan_Tagonist
Mainan_Tagonist on Hacker News
According to it, the sea peoples could instead be vast numbers of western europeans fleeing the outcome of a massive volcanic eruption in Iceland, which would have triggered crop failures and mass starvation in western and northern europe.
A significant portion of the survivors would have fled en masse to the richer eastern Mediterranean empires, thereby causing their downfall.
I guess the Normans while not being "ethnically" Frank or Gallic at the time, had already been absorbed into "Frank Culture". They were also loose vassals to the king of France at the time as I recollect.
"Ah, l'Angleterre, cette colonie française qui a mal tourné." - G. Clémenceau
--Edited for clarity
Economically, Starlink and its subscription model cannot compete with a hardware cost only mean of communication where all elements are modular in this particular context.
On the other hand, even people in remote communities will also end up getting hold of a cheap smartphone that they would like to connect to the internet
Vote me down all you want, women are just as capable as men in every way, including the wrong, toxic ones
Management is not just about qualification, it's also about the human aspect.
I have seen enough toxic femineity at work to say it is actually a thing, on par with toxic masculinity.
Just putting this here for clarity.
The 5 Dragons (Taiwan, South Korea, HK, Singapore, Japan) followed pretty much the same recipes that made Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland industrial powerhouses in their days.
OP argued that investment is lead by short term thinking, yet i point out example of long term thinking and risk taking by investors.
Musk did not go it alone in the SpaceX venture, he obviously had other investors joining in on the risks and potential losses.
As for the government giving private capital public funds, no, that's obviously not what i'm arguing for, even though that's pretty much how the US has been running since WW2. The military industrial complex did not rise up as a normal capitalistic venture.
I am as appalled as anyone by the divestments in healthcare, education and such in the US, but the moral underpinnings and fundaments of the United States and its history, the puritanical element in particular, lead me to think that this is going to remain a long term issue in this country.
But what about SpaceX, Blue Origin... there are also counter examples that show it is possible for investors to wait out the big profits.
This is a bit lighter and not specifically about India, enlightening nonetheless: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/166434.Empire
Basically, the history of British administration of India can not be summed up by the massacre of Amritsar or the sepoy wars
Kublai Khan also makes for decent entertainment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo_(2014_TV_series)
Yes, and what could be that something special?
Imperialism says you? Britain and France have been struck by terrorism yet they no longer have an empire. Ok, guilt by association could be a motive... But then why would Belgium and Germany be struck? oh, and Sweden too? And all these kidnapped christian girls in Nigeria? and in every case by Sunni-Muslim...
Maybe it's anti-imperialism, who knows... perhaps some middle eastern sunni muslims were really upset that Sweden ever had an empire, and decided that ramming a crowd with a truck was a good way to avenge the "oppression" perpetrated by Sweden 300 years ago.
That, or maybe you could adjust your worldview, and realise that religious fanatism has been a pretty strong motivator for atrocities throughout history, and even in such enlightened times as ours, there are still people who would conduct the most horrendous acts for their faith and the credibility it gives them within their group.
In all cases, the Chinese, who also suffered from such attacks (the perpetrators were of the same religion), found a "solution" that is much more aligned with imperialistic norms throughout history. They have not been struck since.
And no, be at rest, I am not for the establishment of a surveillance state, but pointing the wilful blindness in your reasoning.
By historical standard, over the last 10000 years prosperity, democracy and peace have hardly been the norm, don't you think? Empires have existed all over the world however. Perhaps we should accept what is a fact of life of human societies, and try to minimise its most egregious aspects, rather than wishfulling hoping for the profound change that will never materialise.
The pilots who flew planes into buildings 25 years ago were saudis, Saudi Arabia was never part of a western Empire. They trained in Afghanistan which was never part of a western empire (Alexander the Great does not count).
They were able to strike the American empire because, contrary to the common political discourse on the left, the American empire is a rather open and benevolent hegemon by historical standard, and internal dissent is not crushed or exterminated as it would have been were the Americans behaving as the Ottomans, the Romans, the Mongols, the Spanish, USSR etc...
I am not apologizing the American empire, I am not even american nor do I like the culture that spews out of the US, especially these days, but one has to put things into historical context if we are to understand the nature of terror attacks.
Give it too long a rest and you have to go back at full blast for weeks on end to hope to ever achieve past performance.
I am very bad at math and have always been in awe of those who can do it well.
How would the Mongols, the Russians, the Egyptian empires have solved the israeli/palestine conflict? Do you know where the terms zealots and sicario come from? Did the Romans solve these terror attacks by reconsidering their "catastrophically bad policies"?
How many retaliatory terror attacks on americans performed by citizen of those countries?
What point are you trying to make? US bad? Anything more thoughtful to offer?
The US are an empire and they have behaved as an empire over the last 70 years (bombing, overthrowing governments, supporting dictators). By historical standard, they have proved less coercive than empires of proportionally comparable reach. Think of the Mongols, the Assyrians, the Japanese...
Your income may remain constant while your wealth rises significantly (say... because your investments are doing well, because you inherited... etc). The two are often confused when talking about (tech) billionaires.
Strictly speaking, this is not what happened, and a gross oversimplification. The Byzantines were not exactly rivals of the Venetians. The whole thing was quite bizarre in fact, Roger Crowley has a pretty good story of the events leading up to this in "City of Fortune: How Venice Won and Lost a Naval Empire" if I'm not mistaken.