Factual Frenzy
Bio
Stories (17/0)
Why is the Mona Lisa so famous?
Vincenzo Peruggia took a painting off the wall and slid down the back stairs of the Louvre on August 21, 1911, as dawn broke over Paris. He was just a few steps away from freedom when he ran into a two-pronged issue: There were approaching footsteps as the door was locked. The "Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci was tucked under Peruggia's arm. It is currently regarded as the most famous painting in the world. But how did it get to where it is today? The portrait is said to have been started by Leonardo in 1503, when a Florentine businessman asked for a portrait of his wife, Lisa Gherardini. Leonardo worked on the painting for more than a decade, but when he died, it was not finished. Leonardo da Vinci was a pioneer in a number of artistic techniques thanks to his ground-breaking research on human optics over the course of his lifetime. The "Mona Lisa" depicts some of them. Utilizing "air point of view," he made pictures at more noteworthy distances hazier, creating the deception of significant profundity. Additionally, he used the technique known as "sfumato" to create subtle color gradations that softened the edges of the forms he depicted. Although all of this is striking, is it sufficient to make the "Mona Lisa" the most well-known painting in the world? It is regarded as an exceptional Renaissance portrait by many academics, but it is only one of many. Additionally, great artwork can be found throughout history. In point of fact, most of the factors that contributed to the "Mona Lisa's" rise to worldwide fame were outside of the canvas. After Leonardo's death, King François the First of France purchased the painting and began displaying it. After that, in 1550, the well-known biography of Italian Renaissance artists, including Leonardo, was written by the Italian scholar Giorgio Vasari. The book, which was translated and sold a lot, described the "Mona Lisa" as if it were a dreamlike representation of life. The "Mona Lisa" evolved into one of the French Royal Collection's most coveted pieces over time. It was initially displayed for the general public in the Louvre Museum before hanging in Napoleon's bedroom. The once-private treasures of the deposed aristocracy were a popular attraction for tourists there. A number of European academics in the 1800s increased the "Mona Lisa"'s popularity by focusing heavily on its allure. Alfred Dumesnil stated in 1854 that the smile on the Mona Lisa evoked a "treacherous attraction." After a year, Théophile Gautier composed of her "taunting lips" and "look encouraging obscure delights." In addition, Walter Pater described the Mona Lisa in 1869 as the epitome of timeless femininity. The portrait was a well-known piece in one of the world's most famous museums by the 20th century. However, the "Mona Lisa" was not yet well-known. It was Peruggia's 1911 heist that assisted it with soaring to uncommon distinction. It wasn't entirely out of the question that Peruggia would be imprisoned inside the Louvre because he had been contracted to create protective cases for the museum. Additionally, Peruggia was fortunate in that a worker who saw him in the stairwell simply assisted Peruggia in opening the door and allowed him to leave for the day. The theft made news around the world. The empty space where the "Mona Lisa" used to be displayed drew a crowd of people. Because Peruggia had worked at the Louvre, the police interviewed him, but they never considered him a suspect. In the meantime, they questioned Pablo Picasso regarding his connection to a previous robbery at the Louvre, but in the end, they let him go. After smuggling the "Mona Lisa" to Italy and making arrangements to sell it to a Florentine art dealer, Peruggia kept the painting in a false bottom suitcase for two years. Peruggia viewed himself as an Italian patriot who was returning the work of an old master. However, he was immediately detained, not celebrated as such. The "Mona Lisa" was put back on display in front of large crowds after the mystery was solved, and newspapers celebrated the success of the story. In the next many years, reasonable craftsman Marcel Duchamp derided it; It was pursued by Nazi art thieves; About it, Nat King Cole sang; and it was attacked by museum visitors with teacups, paint, stones, and paintbrushes. Over 500 years after its creation — eyebrows and eyelashes since a long time ago blurred — the "Mona Lisa" is safeguarded by an impenetrable, tremor safe case. It now stands as a reminder of how we create and maintain celebrity, rather than as an outstanding Renaissance portrait.
By Factual Frenzyabout a year ago in Education
The rise and fall of the medieval Islamic Empire
In the seventh century CE, one man began a chain of occasions that would impact the world request for good. Through the creation of Islam, the people of the Arabian Peninsula were brought together by the prophet Muhammad. These people included Bedouin tribes that lived on the move and people who lived in oasis cities like Mecca and Medina. Prior to Muhammad's time, the region was not thought to be a serious threat to the powerful Persian and Byzantine empires that were nearby. However, Muhammad's alliance was not only religious but also political—it was an empire with Medina as its political center and a force to be reckoned with. Muhammad was a leader unlike any other. He had belonged to the Quraysh tribe, which ruled Mecca. The question of who should succeed Muhammad was a contentious one after his death. Ab Bakr, Muhammad's spouse and father-in-law, won out and became the new caliph, also known as Muhammad's successor. Four caliphs from Muhammad's tribe conquered vast territories outside of Arabia over the next 30 years, including their formidable neighbors, the Persians and Byzantines. However, as the empire grew, internal discontent grew, and a civil war broke out. Ali, the fourth caliph, was killed. The Umayyad Dynasty took over after that. While the Umayyads belonged to a rival clan, they belonged to the same tribe as Muhammad. They established Damascus as their capital and expanded the empire's territory to include India and what is now Spain. However, a vast empire with so many distinct peoples was susceptible to conflict and division. By replacing the ruling elite in conquered territories with Muslim officials, the Umayyads stabilized it while largely allowing local customs, including religious preferences, to continue. Arabic served as the empire's administrative language, unifying political affairs, but local languages were still spoken and written. Still, many people in the empire were unhappy with the rule of the Umayyads and doubted the dynasty's legitimacy. The Abbasid family exploited these opinions, advancing themselves as more straightforward relatives of the prophet, however their genuine connection to Muhammad was more shaky than they guaranteed. In 750 CE, they overthrew the Umayyad caliphate and became the Islamic Empire's second great dynasty. They moved the capital once more and built a new city to establish themselves as the new rulers: Baghdad. Due to extensive trade networks that brought goods and people from all over the world to Baghdad, the elite lived in luxury under Abbasid rule. Knowledge and cultures from Byzantine, Persian, Indian, and Arab cultures intertwined, resulting in artistic and scientific advancement. Beyond imagination, the caliph was wealthy and powerful. Be that as it may, there was never a reasonable line of progression directing who might turn into the following caliph. Since the former caliph's male relatives could apply, brothers, nephews, and uncles fought for power. Army officers, wives, concubines, and government officials all sought their fair share of the treasury in the courtroom. Each change in power opened the door to favoritism and corruption due to the caliph's dependence on his entourage. Because of the conflict between the caliph's religious obligation to moral excellence and the court's extravagant displays of wealth, many outside the court questioned the caliph's legitimacy. The Mongols approached Baghdad in 1258 CE. As they completely destroyed the city, they met little resistance. The caliph is said to have been wrapped in a rug, killed by horses, and the ink from the manuscripts thrown into the Tigris River is said to have turned black. The attack of Baghdad revealed a longstanding reality: The caliphs had ruled primarily symbolically for centuries. The empire's increasingly powerful local leaders refused to pay taxes and instead used the money to fund their own courts. Although the unified Islamic Empire's written and spoken Arabic influence, Islam, and the ideas of its greatest intellectuals left a lasting impression on the world.
By Factual Frenzyabout a year ago in Education
Do tax cuts stimulate the economy?
When President Ronald Reagan began his first term in 1981, the US economy was struggling. Unemployment rates were high and getting higher, and in 1979, inflation had peaked at an all-time high for peacetime. In an effort to combat these issues, Reagan's administration introduced a number of economic policies, including tax cuts for large corporations and high-income earners. The idea was that tax savings for the rich would cause extra money to trickle down to everyone else, and for that reason, these policies are often referred to as trickle-down economics. From the 80s to the late 90s, the US saw one of its longest and strongest periods of economic growth in history. Median income rose, as did rates of job creation. Since then, many politicians have invoked trickle-down theory as a justification for tax cuts— but did these policies actually work, either in the sense of stimulating economic growth, or in terms of improving circumstances for Americans? Would they work in other circumstances? To answer these questions, the main things to consider are whether the impact of the tax cut on the government’s tax revenue is harmful, whether the money saved in taxes actually stimulates the economy, and whether stimulating the economy actually improves people’s lives. The idea behind tax cuts is that if taxes are too high, people will be less willing to work, which would ultimately decrease tax revenue. So at a lower tax rate, the government might actually gain more tax money that it can theoretically put towards improving life for its citizens, because people will work more when they get to keep more of their earnings. Of course, there’s a limit to how much the government can cut taxes: at a zero tax rate there is no tax revenue regardless of how much people are working. So while cuts from a very high tax rate might be fine, cuts from a lower tax rate might be counterproductive, hampering the government's ability to accomplish crucial things. Tax rates were extremely high when Reagan took office. His administration cut the highest income tax bracket from 70% to 28% and corporation tax from 48% to 34%. By comparison, as of early 2021, those rates were 37% and 21% respectively. When tax rates are lower, tax cuts for the wealthy can be harmful. For example, in 2012 to 2013, lawmakers cut the top tax-rate in the state of Kansas by almost 30% and reduced some business tax rates to zero. As a result, the government’s balance sheet immediately fell into negative territory and did not recover, implying that wealthy individuals and companies did not invest back into the economy. In short, the money did not trickle down. This appears to be a trend: in a study over multiple periods of history and across 18 countries, The London School of Economics found that cutting taxes increased the wealth of the top 1% of people, but had little effect on the economy as a whole. In order for tax cuts for the rich to truly stimulate the economy, they would have to spend the saved money putting it back into, for example, local businesses— but this isn’t what happens in practice. No economic policy operates in isolation: each time and place is unique with multiple policies in place simultaneously, so there is only ever one test case for each set of scenarios. This makes it difficult to deliver definitive rulings on whether an economic policy worked, whether something else might have worked better, or whether it would work in a different situation. And yet, rhetoric around trickle-down economics, both during the Reagan era and since, often promises something definitive: that spending by society’s richest members on things other than taxes directly improves the financial circumstances of the less wealthy. And there’s not much evidence to support that.
By Factual Frenzyabout a year ago in Education
6 myths about the Middle Ages
Europe during the medieval period. Where unbathed, sword-wielding knights defended chaste maidens, believed the Earth was flat, ate rotten meat, and tortured their adversaries with gruesome weapons However, this is more fantasy than reality. So, where do all of the medieval myths originate? And how did they actually appear? The 1,000-year period known as the "Middle Ages" begins with the fall of Rome in the fifth century and ends with the Italian renaissance in the fifteenth century. The term has also been used to describe other parts of the world, but traditionally it has only been used to describe Europe. One confusion is that middle age individuals were all uninformed and uninformed. For instance, a 19th-century biography of Christopher Columbus made erroneous claims that medieval Europeans believed the Earth was flat. The Earth's shape was not much of a topic of debate, despite the fact that many medieval scholars consider it to be the center of the universe. “On the Sphere of the World” was the title of a well-known text from the thirteenth century. In addition, as monasteries, convents, and universities were established during the Middle Ages, literacy rates gradually increased as well. Additionally, ancient knowledge was not "lost"; The study of Greek and Roman texts continued. In the 1930s, a British book made the idea that medieval people ate rotten meat and covered it up with spices. It used laws prohibiting the sale of rotten meat as evidence that it was frequently consumed and misinterpreted a medieval recipe. In fact, salt curing of meats was a safe way for medieval Europeans to preserve meats while avoiding rancid foods. Spices were well-liked. However, they frequently cost more than the meat itself. Therefore, anyone who could afford them could also purchase fresh food. In the meantime, the French historian Jules Michelet of the 19th century described the Middle Ages as "a thousand years without a bath." However, public bathhouses were well-used in even small towns. Soaps made of ash, scented herbs, and animal fat were used to lather people up. They also used spices and herbs, pastes and powders for teeth cleaning cloths, mouthwash, and mouthwash. What about medieval methods of torture? A group of what were described as "terrible relics of a semi-barbarous age" went on tour in the 1890s. They include: the Iron Lady, which entranced watchers with its spiked entryways — yet it was created, conceivably only a long time previously. Also, there's no sign Iron Ladies really existed in the Medieval times. In contrast, there was a thing called the "Pear of Anguish," but it only existed later, so it couldn't have been used for torture. It could just have been a shoe-stretcher. In point of fact, a number of what appear to be medieval torture instruments are far more recent creations. Middle age official procedures were generally speaking less horrifying than these contraptions recommend. They included fines, jail time, humiliation in public, and some forms of corporal punishment. Although torture and executions did occur, particularly violent punishments like drawing and quartering were typically reserved for high treason offenses. However, chastity belts must have existed, right? Most likely not. They were first mentioned by a German engineer in the 15th century, probably in jest, along with fart jokes and an invisibility device. They were then popular satirical subjects that were later misinterpreted as medieval reality. The interest of people in later times has influenced how people think about the Middle Ages. During the 15th and 16th centuries, scholars who were biased toward the Classical and Modern periods that followed popularized the term as well as the derogatory term "Dark Ages." In addition, medieval people were depicted as superstitious and irrational by Enlightenment thinkers, who celebrated their commitment to reason. Romantic European nationalist thinkers romanticized the Middle Ages in the 19th century. They depicted disengaged, white, Christian social orders, underlining stories of gallantry and marvel. Yet, knights assumed negligible parts in archaic fighting. Additionally, the Middle Ages witnessed extensive interactions. Byzantine, Muslim, and Mongol trade routes brought ideas to Europe. Additionally, numerous merchants, intellectuals, and diplomats traveled to medieval European cities. The most widespread erroneous belief is that the Middle Ages were one continuous period in European history. Initially characterized less by what they were than what they weren't, the Medieval times turned into a ground for dueling thoughts — energizing more dream than reality.
By Factual Frenzyabout a year ago in Education
The science of falling in love
The emotions of love can range from heartwarming to heartbreaking. So, what does it have to do with the brain? Everything! A symphony of neurochemicals and brain systems guides the journey from the initial spark to the final tear. You may find yourself obsessing over them and wanting to spend more and more time together as you begin to fall in love. This first phase of adoration is what clinicians call fascination, or energetic love. When it comes to the brain, your new relationship can almost feel like a high, and that's not far from the truth. The ventral tegmental area is more active in infatuated individuals. The VTA is the brain's reward-processing and motivation hub. It fires when you eat a sweet treat, drink water, or, in more extreme cases, use drugs. Dopamine, a neurotransmitter that makes you feel good, is released during activation, teaching your brain to repeat actions in anticipation of receiving the same initial reward. Love is not only euphoric but also draws you toward your new partner due to this increased VTA activity. It might be hard to see any flaws in your new perfect partner at first. Love's influence on higher cortical brain regions is the cause of this haze. The prefrontal cortex, the brain's cognitive center, shows decreased activity in some newly infatuated people. It shouldn't come as a surprise that we tend to see new relationships through rose-colored glasses because activating this region enables us to engage in critical thought and make judgments. While this first phase of affection can be a serious rollercoaster of feelings and mind action, it commonly just endures a couple of months, clearing a path for the more dependable phase of affection, known as connection, or merciful love. Two hormones, in large part, may make you feel more relaxed and committed to your partner as your relationship develops: vasopressin and oxytocin. Known as pair-holding chemicals, they signal trust, sensations of social help and connection. In this way, romantic love is similar to other types of love because these hormones help families and friendships become stronger. Additionally, oxytocin has the ability to prevent the production of stress hormones, which is why spending time with a loved one can be so therapeutic. It is possible for early love to give way to a deeper connection and a more sincere understanding as the judgment-free quality of the love fades. On the other hand, issues in your relationship may become more apparent as your rose-colored glasses begin to fade. We can attribute the emotional anguish that comes with heartbreak to the brain, regardless of the cause of the breakup. The insular cortex is a part of the brain that processes both physical and social pain, like spraining your ankle or feeling rejected, when a breakup causes distress. You might start daydreaming about or yearning for contact with your ex-partner once more as the days go by. Like a severe hunger or thirst, the desire to help others may feel overwhelming. Heartbroken individuals exhibit increased activity in the VTA, the motivation and reward center that drove feelings of longing during the initial stages of the relationship, when they look at photos of a former partner. You may also feel shaken and restless as a result of this emotional whirlwind activating your body's stress axis. Over the long haul, higher cortical areas which administer thinking and drive control, can slow down this misery and hankering flagging. It is not surprising that the first heartbreak can be particularly painful because these regions are still maturing and forming connections throughout adolescence. Dopamine, a neurotransmitter that makes us feel good, can be used to control this heartbreak stress response through activities like exercise, spending time with friends, or even listening to your favorite song. And even the most devastating heartbreaks can be healed and learned from with time and support.
By Factual Frenzyabout a year ago in Education
The myth of Pegasus and the chimera
Perseus crept through Medusa's cave, shielded from the gorgon's icy gaze. He took a deep breath when he got to her and then drew his sickle and dropped it on her neck all at once. Medusa's head moved to the ground and from her neck sprung two youngsters. Chrysaor, a giant with a golden sword, was one of them; Pegasus, a magnificent white horse with wings, was the other. He could change mountains and create streams from dry rock with the stomp of his hooves, making him faster than any other horse. No harness could contain him — until one portentous day. The Greek city-state prince of Corinth, Bellerophon, seemed to have it all. However, his goals were greater than his actual circumstances. What he really needed was to be a legend so extraordinary that the divine beings would invite him on Mount Olympus. Pegasus, in Bellerophon's opinion, would be crucial to his success in scaling such heights. He went to the Athena temple, the goddess of war and wisdom, one night and prayed for the power to make the powerful animal happy. Upon awakening, Bellerophon found a magical golden bridle and raced to the fountain from which Pegasus drank. Bellerophon mounted the horse on his back and fastened the bridle as soon as the horse turned toward the water. Pegasus was finally subdued. Bellerophon believed he was on his way to becoming a legendary hero as a result of this conquest. He worked day and night to prepare for battle. Be that as it may, one instructional meeting turned out badly, and Bellerophon mortally harmed his sibling, Deliades. Shamed, he was banished to Argos, where Ruler Proetus filtered him. The Queen of Argos had her eye on Bellerophon, despite his determination to restore his reputation. She also accused Bellerophon of trying to seduce her after he turned down her advances, further tarnishing his reputation. Within a short time, King Proetus had a plan to exact revenge. He ousted Bellerophon and Pegasus and sent them to the realm of Lycia, conveying a note to Iobates, Lycia's top dog. Be that as it may, unbeknownst to Bellerophon, he was conveying a declaration for his own demise. Iobates chose the perfect monster for the job after considering various methods of killing the youth: the Chimera, a fire-breathing lion, goat, and dragon that had long terrorized his kingdom. Bellerophon accepted the challenge eager to achieve greatness. The two of them shot into the sky after he mounted Pegasus. They saw the Chimera surrounded by its charred victims as they flew above the ground. Before long, they also were confronting its capability. Pegasus avoided each of Bellerophon's arrows as he performed a series of quick aerial acrobatics. Bellerophon dealt the beast a fatal blow when Pegasus finally approached the beast from just the right angle. Iobates was doubtful. Despite having to deal with Bellerophon, he was relieved to have defeated the monster. Thus, he put forward additional difficulties, setting Bellerophon facing fearsome champions, exceptionally gifted bowmen, and, eventually, Lycia's best warriors. Like clockwork, Pegasus' power switched things around in support of Bellerophon. Iobates was forced to admit that Bellerophon was a real hero at last. He even proposed that he marry his daughter. However, Bellerophon had his sights far beyond the mortal world. He was certain that he had earned the right to a place on Mount Olympus now. As a result, he rode Pegasus and pushed him ever higher. As Bellerophon got closer to his palace, buoyed by arrogance, Zeus observed. To rebuff the young, he delivered a solitary gadfly, which beelined towards Pegasus and spot into his tissue. The highest Bellerophon could ever achieve was this. As Pegasus winced, he flung his rider very high, and Bellerophon fell lurching back to Earth. In contrast, Pegasus ascended with Zeus' blessing. He was made immortal by the gods by entering the halls of Mount Olympus and being enshrined in a constellation. Pegasus can be seen soaring, unrestrained, and free there in the night sky.
By Factual Frenzyabout a year ago in Education
The continents are moving. When will they collide?
Alfred Wegener, a meteorologist, noticed striking similarities between the coasts of Africa and South America at the beginning of the 20th century. He came up with a controversial new theory as a result of these observations: It's possible that many other continents were once connected by a vast landmass. The popular belief that Earth's continents had remained stable for millennia was directly contradicted by Wegener's Theory of Continental Drift. It took his supporters almost 50 years to persuade the larger scientific community of their theory. However, today, we realize something much seriously thrilling — Pangea was unquestionably the most recent in a long genealogy of supercontinents, and it won't be the last. Our current theory of plate tectonics, which asserts that the Earth's crust is composed of vast, jagged plates that shift over a layer of partially molten rock known as the mantle, was established by Continental Drift. Even though these plates only move 2.5 to 10 centimeters per year, the surface of the planet is shaped by these small movements. Therefore, we need to know where these plates are going in order to predict when a new supercontinent will form. One strategy is to examine their previous movements. By measuring changes in the Earth's magnetic field, geologists can determine where continents have been over time. Whenever liquid stone cools, its attractive minerals are "frozen" at a particular moment. Thus, we can determine the latitude at which a rock was situated during cooling by calculating its magnetic field's direction and intensity. However, this method has significant drawbacks. For one thing, the longitude of a rock's plate cannot be determined from its magnetic field, and the measurement of its latitude can be either north or south. Worse yet, when the rock is reheated, such as during continental collisions or volcanic activity, this magnetic data is erased. Therefore, geologists must employ alternative strategies to retrace the positions of the continents. Identifying previously connected regions can be made easier by dating local fossils and comparing them to the global fossil record. The equivalent is valid for breaks and different distortions in the World's outside, which can in some cases be followed across plates. Utilizing these devices, researchers have sorted out a moderately solid history of plate developments, and their exploration uncovered an example crossing countless years. The Wilson Cycle, which is now known as a prediction, explains how continents split up and reassemble. Additionally, it predicts that the next supercontinent will emerge in 50 to 250 million years. We don't know much about how that landmass will look. It could be a brand-new Pangea that emerges from the Atlantic's closing. Or on the other hand it could result from the development of another Container Asian sea. However, despite the fact that its form and size remain a mystery, we are aware that these modifications will have an impact far beyond our national borders. Previously, impacting plates have created major ecological disturbances. Large landmasses were exposed to weathering when the Rodinia supercontinent broke up about 750 million years ago. The planet entered a time period known as Snowball Earth as a result of this newly exposed rock absorbing additional rainfall carbon dioxide. This ice had to be melted for another 4 to 6 million years after volcanic activity released enough CO2 to do so. In the meantime, things are more likely to get hotter when the next supercontinent comes together. Cracks in the crust of the Earth could grow as a result of plate tectonics and continental collisions, potentially releasing significant quantities of carbon and methane into the atmosphere. The planet would quickly get hotter as a result of this influx of greenhouse gases, which could lead to a mass extinction. Even if we were able to plug these cracks, the resulting pressure would only cause additional cracks because of their size. Luckily, we have no less than 50 million years to concoct an answer here, and we could as of now be onto something. Recent tests in Iceland showed that basalt could store carbon and quickly turn these gases into stone. As a result, it's possible that a global network of pipes could direct gases that were vented into basalt outcrops, reducing some of our current emissions and safeguarding our super continental future.
By Factual Frenzyabout a year ago in Education
The Turning Point?!
Some might argue that it was a time of extensive military campaigns that reshaped political and cultural boundaries, much like Alexander the Great's campaign in the 300s BCE. Others might point to the 7th-century rise of Islam, a major religion that codified and spread values across such borders. Or, perhaps it was the Industrial Revolution of the 1700s, which reshaped human relationships with labor and reshaped global commerce. Regardless of the response, it appears that any century competing for that top spot occurred during a time of great change, when our ancestors' actions changed the course of human history for centuries to come. If this is our metric, then is it possible that this century, right now, is the most significant yet? Already, the 21st century has been marked by rapid technological development. Telephones and PCs have sped up the speed of life. Additionally, we are likely on the verge of developing revolutionary new technologies like advanced artificial intelligence that have the potential to completely alter human life. In the meantime, many of the technologies that we already have contribute to the unprecedented levels of existential risk that humanity faces. This risk refers to the possibility that our species will go extinct or that some kind of disaster will occur that will permanently limit humanity's capacity to develop and prosper. The development of the atomic bomb marked a significant increase in existential risk, and since then, our odds have only gotten worse. Estimating the likelihood of an existential collapse occurring in this century is extremely challenging. The odds of nuclear winter and climate change causing an existential catastrophe of around 1%, and the odds of a pandemic causing the same kind of collapse of frightening 3%, are very rough estimates. These are not insignificant numbers considering that any of these catastrophes could result in the end of life as we know it. Additionally, it is possible that new technologies will emerge during this century, introducing additional existential threats. Computer based intelligence specialists have a large number of evaluations with respect to when counterfeit general knowledge will arise, however as indicated by some studies, many accept it could happen hundred years. At the moment, there are only a few specific kinds of artificial intelligence that are made to do specific things like play chess or recognize faces. Even narrow AIs that perform creative work are restricted to a single area of expertise. However, fake general insights, or AGIs, would have the option to adjust to and play out quite a few undertakings, rapidly dominating their human partners. There are a lot of different theories about what AGI might look like and what it would be like for humans to live on the same planet as another sentient being. AGIs may assist us in achieving our objectives, they may view us as insignificant, or they may view us as a challenge that must be swiftly removed. Therefore, it is essential that the values of this new technology align with our own in terms of existential risk. This is a very difficult engineering and philosophical problem that will require a lot of careful, thoughtful work. However, even if we are successful, AGI may still result in an additional complicated outcome. Let's say an AGI emerges with a sincere reverence for human life and a desire to alleviate all human suffering. In any case, to try not to become skewed, it's been created to be extraordinarily unbending about its convictions. Humanity might be enslaved to a single ideology that would be extremely difficult to alter if these machines came to dominate the planet. History has shown that, regardless of how well-intentioned a civilization may appear to be, they rarely live up to the moral standards set by subsequent generations. Furthermore, this sort of significant worth lock in could for all time mutilate or oblige mankind's ethical development. It is extremely difficult to predict how any existential risks will play out over the next century because of the enormous amount of uncertainty surrounding AGI. Additionally, it's possible that these risks will no longer be relevant due to new, pressing concerns. However, it still appears that the choices we make may have a significant impact on humanity's future, despite the fact that we are unable to declare this century to be the most significant. Therefore, perhaps we ought to all live as though the future is in our hands— for, in actuality, it just might.
By Factual Frenzyabout a year ago in Education
History Of The Lakota Empire
In North America, a powerful empire was established in 1776. The Black Hills, the most sacred and coveted buffalo hunting grounds in the western plains, had been reached by the Lakotas. The Lakotas established themselves as the dominant force in the American West when they gained control of the Black Hills, or Paha Sapa, in what is now South Dakota. In the eastern woodlands, just a few decades earlier, they were competing for power and losing. The Lakotas were one of seven nations or council fires that made up the Sioux Alliance. For centuries, they lived in the forests and wetlands between the Missouri Valley and the Great Lakes. During the 1600s, European colonizers undermined this locale. The Lakotas lived just out of reach of the best trade opportunities, whereas other tribes made money by trading furs with the new France. They therefore focused on the west at the beginning of the 1700s. The Lakotas' ancestral homelands were significantly more fertile and abundant than the western plains. The only easy way to get food and water was right next to the rivers, which were on land that Arikaras had already claimed. The Lakotas became skilled horseback warriors and buffalo hunters in order to compete. They vanquished the cultivating Arikaras, compelling them to pay recognitions of maize and squash. Instead of paying the Lakotas tolls, the Spanish arrived expecting to find lucrative trading grounds. The Missouri River witnessed a brand-new spectacle in 1804, which included: Lewis Merriwether and Clark William Black Buffalo, the chief of the Lakota, wouldn't let them pass until they paid a hefty tribute. Despite this rough beginning, the undertaking denoted the start of a nearby exchange collusion between the Lakotas and the US. While women processed the hides into robes for trade, Lakota men hunted buffalo. In addition to providing Lakotas with smallpox vaccines that protected them from the deadly epidemics that ravaged other Native American nations, the US government also provided guns, ammunition, and other goods. The Louisiana Purchase represented, on paper, the United States' acquisition of the Lakota lands from France. In any case, the Lakotas wouldn't surrender their territories in view of an arrangement between two unfamiliar powers. Even though there were 15,000 Lakota people and 23 million Americans, the east coast of the United States had the most people and military power. It would cost a lot just to get an army into Lakota territory, and once there, they would have to contend with formidable warriors who had extensive local knowledge and alliances. The US government made an effort to appease the Lakotas by paying hefty tributes for ammunition and rations that the Lakota leaders demanded in order to avoid a war that it couldn't afford and wouldn't win. Thus, the Lakota Empire continued to grow even as nearly all Native Americans in North America were driven off their lands and relocated to reservations. They controlled approximately 500,000 square kilometers by 1850. They were dispersed throughout this vast region and moved their villages in search of Buffalo. The heads of bands, or oyates, gathered at annual Sun Dances to plan and coordinate intricate diplomatic operations despite the absence of a central authority. Sun Dances were spiritual rites that took place during the summer and lasted for a few weeks. They were meant to strengthen community ties, please Wakan Tanka, the Great Spirit, and keep the world in balance. The California gold rush, which began in 1849, brought a flood of white settlers west, invading Lakota territory and disrupting the buffalo herds. This migration was correctly interpreted by Lakota leaders as a sign that the United States no longer intended to honor their land claim. They attacked government buildings and wagon trains in retaliation. Chief Red Cloud negotiated in Washington, DC, as the conflict grew. Chiefs Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, and others got ready for battle back in Lakota territory. They prepared their Cheyenne and Arapaho partners and practically the wide range of various Sioux countries against the US. The sacred Black Hills were taken over by gold prospectors in 1876, exactly one hundred years after the Lakotas arrived. This was the last straw for many Lakotas. Crazy Horse led Lakota forces to a decisive victory over the Americans in the Battle of the Little Bighorn, following a vision from Sitting Bull. The Lakotas faced an even greater threat following this victory: Buffaloes were in danger of starvation after their populations were decimated by railroad construction and wagon travel. They moved to reservations, where the authorities attempted to dismantle their culture by banning the Sun Dance on reservations and murdering Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse. The Lakotas began a dissent development called the Phantom Dance. The United States Army massacred hundreds of Lakotas, many of whom were women and children, at Wounded Knee Creek in 1890, alarmed by this resistance. Lakotas continue to fight for their land and culture today. In 2016, they continued their long tradition of resistance to a government known for breaking its promises by attracting supporters from all over the world to a protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline's construction through their reservation.
By Factual Frenzyabout a year ago in Education
What’s the best country to live in?
Which nation has the best living conditions in the world? Is it the one serving the finest cuisine? The longest future? Which weather is best? To answer that question, the majority of governments have heavily relied on a single number for the past seventy years. Elections, the stock market, and government policy are all influenced by this number. In any case, it was never planned for its ongoing reason; and there are those who would argue that the entire world is forever addicted to making it grow. The economist Simon Kuznets came up with this number, which is known as the Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, in the 1930s to try to measure the size of an economy using a single, easy-to-understand number. GDP is the total value of all goods and services a nation produces and sells on the market. GDP per capita, which is simply the country's total GDP divided by the number of people living there, is still widely regarded as a measure of well-being to this day. Be that as it may, Gross domestic product doesn't really say anything direct about prosperity, since it doesn't consider what a nation produces or who approaches it. A nation's GDP is equivalent to that of a million dollars spent on food or vaccines or a million dollars spent on weapons. Because they are not offered for sale on the market, the value that society derives from things like public schools or firefighters is not included in GDP at all. GDP per capita also presents a misleading picture of a nation's wealth if the majority of it is controlled by a small number of individuals. Despite everything, there was a long-term correlation between a better quality of life and a higher GDP in many nations. From 1945 to 1970, as Gross domestic product multiplied, significantly increased or even quadrupled in a few western economies, individuals' wages frequently developed relatively. This had changed by the 1980s. Wages stopped keeping up with GDP growth or, in some cases, even declined, and the majority of the benefits went to a smaller and smaller percentage of the population as countries continued to gain wealth. Nonetheless, the concept of summarizing a nation's well-being in a single number was highly appealing. As an alternative to gross domestic product, King Jigme Singye Wangchuk of Bhutan proposed the concept of gross national happiness in 1972. A metric called Gross National Happiness asks people, "How happy do you think your family members are at the moment?" and takes into account factors like health, education, strong communities, and living standards. What is your insight into names of plants and wild creatures in your space?" furthermore "What kind of day was yesterday?" A more widely used metric is the Human Development Index from the United Nations. It estimates overall well-being by taking health, education, and income per capita into account. In the meantime, a metric known as the Sustainable Development Index takes into account both the effects of economic growth on the environment and people's well-being, reducing everything to a single number. Although no nation has ever been able to fully sustainably use its resources while simultaneously meeting its people's basic needs, Costa Rica currently comes closest. It has been able to significantly raise living standards and grow its economy over the past few decades without significantly increasing emissions. Jordan and Colombia, among others, have made significant progress. Life expectancy, for example, is now higher in Costa Rica than in some of the richest nations in the world. Eventually, there are cutoff points to any move toward that heats up the personal satisfaction in a nation down to a solitary number. Progressively, specialists favor a dashboard approach that spreads out every one of the elements a solitary number clouds. Given that people have different priorities and that the best country to live in depends on who is asking the question, this strategy makes even more sense. What would happen then if you were designing the well-being metric for your nation? What are your priorities and how would you measure them?
By Factual Frenzyabout a year ago in Education
Will humanity go extinct?
Russia noticed a nuclear missile approaching in January 1995. When another system contradicted the initial warning, the alert reached the president, who was considering whether to respond. A research rocket studying the Northern Lights was actually what they thought was the first missile in a massive attack. Despite the fact that it occurred after the Cold War ended, this was still one of the closest calls we've ever made to starting a global nuclear war. For the first time in human history, humanity was given the ability to destroy itself when the atomic bomb was created. From that point forward, our existential gamble — hazard of one or the other elimination or the unrecoverable breakdown of human development — has consistently expanded. We have the ability to lessen this risk, but first, we need to know which of our activities currently pose existential threats and which might in the future. Asteroid impacts, super volcanoes, and other natural disasters have all threatened our species over the past 2,000 centuries. Because we typically look at how frequently something has occurred in the past when trying to determine how likely it is, assessing existential risk is inherently uncertain. In any case, the total obliteration of humankind has never occurred. Experts estimate that our risk from natural threats is approximately one in 10,000 per century, despite the fact that there is no perfect method. Our first addition to that baseline was nuclear weapons. While nuclear weapons come with a number of risks, the existential threat comes from the possibility of a global nuclear war that causes a nuclear winter in which soot from burning cities blocks the sun for years and kills the crops on which humanity depends. Although we haven't yet experienced a nuclear war, our track record is too brief to determine whether they are intrinsically unlikely or merely a matter of luck. We also don't know for sure if a global nuclear war would result in a nuclear winter so severe that it would threaten humanity's existence. Climate change was the next significant addition to our existential risk. Climate change, like nuclear war, could bring about a lot of terrible things that we should try to avoid, but not enough to cause extinction or an unrecoverable collapse. We anticipate a warming of a few degrees Celsius, but we are unable to completely rule out a warming of six or even ten degrees, which would bring about a catastrophe of possibly unprecedented proportions. Even in the worst-case scenario, it is unclear whether climate change would directly threaten our existence; however, the disruption it would cause would likely make us more susceptible to other existential threats. Technologies that are still in their infancy may pose the greatest dangers. Consider artificial pandemics. Pandemics have caused the most devastating catastrophes in human history. Additionally, we are able to modify and create germs that may be significantly more lethal than those that are found naturally thanks to biotechnology. Through biowarfare and research accidents, these germs could spread and cause pandemics. The number of individuals and groups who have the potential to create such pathogens has also increased as a result of the decreased costs of genome sequencing and modification, as well as the increased availability of potentially hazardous information like the published genomes of deadly viruses. Unaligned AI is another concern. The majority of AI researchers believe that artificial intelligence will surpass human capabilities in every way by the end of this century. If we give up this advantage, the systems we create will control our future. If super intelligent AI isn't perfectly aligned with human values, which scientists are finding extremely difficult, it could pose an existential risk even if it was created solely with humanity's best interests in mind. Some experts think that the anthropogenic existential risk is more than 100 times higher than the natural risk rate. This is based on what we know at this point. However, human choices play a significant role in these odds. because humans are responsible for the majority of the risk and can control it. We can lessen this risk if we prioritize safeguarding humanity's future as the central issue of our time. We control whether humanity realizes its potential or not.
By Factual Frenzyabout a year ago in Education
How did they build the Great Pyramid of Giza?
The construction of Pharaoh Khufu's final resting place began as soon as he ascended the throne around 2575 BCE. Hemiunu, the structure's architect, estimated that finishing the royal tomb would take him 20 years. However, he was unable to foresee that this monument would continue to be the world's tallest constructed structure for more than 3,800 years. Hemiunu would have to dig a canal that was six and a half kilometers long, quarry a lot of limestone and granite, and use kilometers of rope to pull stones into place in order to build the Great Pyramid. Exactly what the Egyptians did is still the subject of heated debate today. Yet, we truly do realize that first Hemiunu required a building site. The west bank of the Nile had a bedrock plateau that could support the pyramid better than shifting sand, and Egyptians believed that death moved west like the setting sun. The plateau itself was carved by masons to resemble the stones used to build the rest of the pyramid, which saved a lot of time. Construction could start once this level foundation was in place. Fortunately, Hemiunu already had a steady supply of workers, as the project required a staggering 25,000 workers. Throughout the year, Egyptians were required to do manual labor for the government, and citizens from all over the country came to help. Worker duties included everything from making clothes and tools to handling paperwork and hard manual labor. However, these workers were not enslaved, contrary to popular belief. As a matter of fact, these residents were housed and taken care of with proportions better compared to the typical Egyptian could bear. Every three minutes, 365 days a year, one block of stone would need to be quarried, transported, and pushed into place to finish the project in 20 years. Hauling limestone from two distinct quarries required workers to work an average of 10 hours per day. One was close to the site, but its yellow stone with fossils on it was only suitable for the interior of the pyramid. Using 9-meter-long sleds made of enormous cedar trunks, exterior stones were transported approximately 13 kilometers away. Limestone is a soft rock that easily splits into straight lines when mined from the ground. However, when exposed to air, it hardens, necessitating copper chisels and wooden mallets for shaping. Over two million stones, each weighing up to 80 tons, were used in the pyramid. Additionally, there was no room for error in their shape. A catastrophic failure at the top of the pyramid could be caused by even the tiniest error at the base of the pyramid. The method by which the materials used to build the pyramids were transported and where they came from are known to researchers, but the construction itself is still a mystery. Although numerous theories exist regarding the number of ramps and their locations, most experts agree that limestone ramps were used to move the stones into place. The pyramid's exterior is only one aspect of its story. Hemiunu always needed a ready-to-use burial chamber because the pharaoh could die at any time. As a result, three distinct burial chambers were constructed during construction. The last of these, the King's Chamber, is a room made of granite with a high ceiling in the pyramid's center. It was perched atop the Grand Gallery, an 8.5-meter-tall passageway that may have served as an ancient freight elevator for moving granite up the pyramid's interior. Every support beam in the pyramid was made of granite. Dolerite rocks were used as hammers by workers to gradually quarry the stone, which was much stronger than limestone but extremely difficult to shape. Hemiunu sent 500 workers in the first year of the project to make sure the granite beams would be ready when he needed them. Twelve years later, the material would be ready. The King's Chamber is supported by five stories of granite, which prevents the pyramid from folding in on itself. The structure was covered entirely in white limestone, which was polished with sand and stone until it sparkled. In the end, a capstone was added to the top. This peak, covered in electrum and shining like gold, shone like a second sun over Egypt. Marriott Hotels provided financial support to make this video possible. With north of 590 lodgings and resorts across the globe, Marriott Inns commends the interest that moves us to travel.
By Factual Frenzyabout a year ago in Education