Uruanna
@Uruanna@lemmy.world
- Comment on The Garden of Eden was based on The Galápagos Islands. 1 month ago:
Right, the Inanna myth where she learns about sex also talks about eating the herbs and trees on a mountain / highland, I’m not sure when Eden was associated with an apple.
- Comment on The Garden of Eden was based on The Galápagos Islands. 1 month ago:
The Galapagos weren’t known to Christians until the mid 16th c. so there’s a bit of a timing problem of over a couple thousand years.
- Comment on The Garden of Eden was based on The Galápagos Islands. 1 month ago:
There’s a field that was called Gu-edin in the mid third millennium BCE that was the subject of a border war that lasted a couple centuries, between the cities of Lagash and Umma (which is right where you said), because the founder of Lagash bought an unassuming piece of land from Umma and a bunch of surrounding terrains, and then did mad irrigation work and it became crazy fertile. According to Lagash’s records, Umma got mad that it was swindled out of such great land and kept attacking Lagash over it, and kept getting its ass kicked and its kings killed. People from Umma were “allowed” to till the field for Lagash for a time, but most of the grain would still go to Lagash, causing more revolts from Umma (and more punishment).
It’s fairly agreed that this place probably gave some degree of inspiration for “Eden”, along with some rare green gardens in the region created with irrigation work. The apple bit, the woman rib bit, and the knowledge bit came from other Sumerian myths.
- Comment on No wonder he's hiding 1 month ago:
Dark matter means there’s a gravitational effect that we can see, but the source is in a spot where we see nothing, so we guess that there has to be something that we can’t see - that doesn’t emit any radiation, starting with light / heat. The lack of electromagnetic radiation is why it’s dark, and the gravitational effect is why it has to be matter - as in something heavy, particles that have a gravitational effect.
We know spots where “matter that we can’t see” should be. The biggest classic example is the bullet cluster, where most of the gravitational effect is outside of the light we see. What we can make progress on is take a list and strike out what it isn’t. We look at some kind of particle we know about, and we check if that could have the effect we see. If it can’t, we shorten the list of what dark matter might be. There’s been a few times along the decades where people said “this time we might have found the one” but so far, we keep shortening the list. The day we say “this time we actually detected something” is the day it won’t be called “dark” anymore, since “dark” is literally because we can’t detect anything coming out of it. Either we’re not looking hard enough to see the radiations we could expect from known matter (except we should be seeing something already with our current tech), or it emits something we can’t see, new types of emissions that we don’t know about. If we ever find a new type of matter that doesn’t emit anything we can see, then it can still be called dark, until we learn to detect it.
It’s possible that our understanding of gravity is wrong and the source of the gravity we see comes from something else in another spot, and the spot we’re looking at doesn’t have any matter we can’t see; but everytime we find something new about gravity, it keeps reinforcing our understanding of it and decreasing the odds that we’re wrong about it and dark matter doesn’t exist. And the theories about gravity that come up to fit the effect we see always create other problems by failing to explain other observations, whereas the current gravity theory does explain everything else. The window for “our current models of gravity are wrong” just keeps getting tighter and harder to justify with every observation that keeps getting more accurate.
- Comment on Biden calls Japan and India xenophobic: ‘They don’t want immigrants’ 1 month ago:
The country is still like 70%+ untouched forest.
Slow down, that shouldn’t change.
- Comment on 23-year-old Nintendo interview shows how little things have changed in gaming 3 months ago:
I know what you mean, but Nintendo is a pretty bad example to illustrate that sentiment. I mean, they totally do corporate crap to benefit them and not the players obviously, but the Zelda series is literally built around the gimmicks of the console. They start thinking about a gimmick, either on the console and / or how to turn that into a gameplay gimmick, and then they make a Zelda game around that. OoT had the rumble pack and then tried to do Ura Zeldthat was supposed to be the system seller for the DD64 - but that blew up and was salvaged between Master Mode and Majora’s Mask. The GameCube had Four Swords with the connection to the GBA and the multiplayer. The Wii had Skyward Sword with the motion thing, the Wii U had the separate tablet. The DS then the 3DS weren’t too relevant for Zelda but they tried, and other games did rely on it.
I’m not saying it’s a fact for the whole series, but Nintendo is particularly famous for developing a gimmick console and then building games around that, so yes, the physical console is actually relevant to the game you want to play it on, you’d be hard pressed to port that elsewhere and emulators are always weird and have a lot of work to adapt into something that makes sense on a single screen with a basic gamepad.