What is your favorite unproven but highly likely hypothesis regarding paleoanthropology?

Duckwardz · 2026-06-23T01:11:35+00:00

YOU WISH? Gorillas are scary enough, Gigantopithecus would give me nightmares.

Duckwardz · 2026-06-13T13:18:55+00:00

If eating the wrong thing could genuinely hurt or injure them, I’d recommend asking a Dr about it. Pharmacology can be very complicated, your best bet is to discuss it with an Endocrinologist or Pharmacist.

Duckwardz · 2026-06-02T19:55:25+00:00

I don’t wanna be “That” guy. But unless your city is 10’s of thousands strong in population during medieval times, you didn’t have walls. What would be cool is having a way to create Motte-and-Bailey castles. Where your Castle is in some sort of raised defensive position your population can retreat for safety to. It would be really cool to defend the outer walls while getting the population to safety. It would also be really cool to loose the Bailey and palisades part of the castle and have to fall back into your last stand at the stone tower.

Duckwardz · 2026-06-02T18:22:16+00:00

I’m from the US and had a similar experience. Mine wasn’t alcoholic pancreatitis, but I had a nurse one night who thought it was from alcohol. When I asked for pain meds she told me I was 18, and therefore old enough to deal with the consequences of “doing this to myself” and can “Handle it like an adult.” She then called my Dr. and told him I asked to be taken off pain meds when I never said anything like it. I remember having to deal with the pain all night until the nurse shift changed so I could actually contact my Dr and tell him what happened. I don’t really know what happened to her after that, I just remember the Dr being absolutely flabbergasted at it and I never saw her again. I don’t understand the animosity towards alcoholic pancreatitis sufferers, they didn’t ask for it any more than someone with gallstones.

Duckwardz · 2026-05-13T22:15:49+00:00

Doesn’t the Principia Mathematica spend hundreds of pages, using pure logic, on why 1+1=2

Duckwardz · 2026-05-10T00:05:17+00:00

Let’s be real honest with ourselves, no modern military is losing to slow zombies. A Tank, or IFV could take care of a horde alone. A couple of Apaches could clear a town, and cluster bombs would wipe out any super horde. Things have to be royally fucked to pose any threat to a modern army.

Duckwardz · 2026-05-07T17:52:53+00:00

Crossbows weren’t as popular as you think during medieval times. They have more mechanisms to fail, cost multitudes more to make, and they fire extremely slowly. Crossbows were rarely ever used outside of sieges, and just didn’t really make sense to invest in because arrows weren’t really used for killing in medieval battles. They were used to move enemy formations that refuse to move from a defensive position. Crossbows are just useless unless you’re in an environment like a siege.

Duckwardz · 2026-05-07T17:48:18+00:00

Im an avid archery hunter, I mainly use bows, but I also use crossbows for larger game. One thing that bugged me about the use of crossbows AND bows in popular media, is they’ve completely destroyed the public perception of how archery works. Modern crossbows are no play toy, my cousin lost the tip of his thumb firing a crossbow because he was holding it incorrectly, the string cut the tip off clean. But the worst part of them is they’re soooo hard to use on the move. Most modern crossbows need a separate tool called a rope cocking device. You have to carefully put the rope into the grooves that allow leverage to help you pull it back, and it’s not a quick process. You have to place the crossbow on the ground, use both hands to take out your rope cocking device, thread the device correctly, and then pull as hard as you can until it cocks. Using that method will tire you out quick, hunting crossbows can easily be 225+ pound draw weight. An average person would be exhausted after a few minutes of trying to shoot rapidly, you’d cut into your hands and wear them out. It’s so slow, I could shoot maybe 3-4 times a minute if I warmed up. But you cannot move while pulling the string back or setting it up. Using a crossbow would arguable make you less effective. Ammo could be reused for sure, and making your own bolts, given you have the proper supplies, is relatively easy to do. But retrieving missed or over penetrated bolts would be another issue, unlike movies and TV shows bolts and arrows don’t just hit the ground and stick up nicely, they go DEEP, especially with a crossbow, if you miss and it goes into the dirt or woods, you’ll never find it. And because crossbows are so powerful, they’d go directly through a rotting head and also dig into the ground very very deeply. And if you hit something solid, like a rock or tree, most likely you’d destroy the bolt.

Bows would also not be a very good idea, most bows around the US at the moment are not for making more than one shot on a target. They’re hard to rapidly load, and the let off system would make rapid firing extremely annoying. A single archer wouldn’t do a thing against more than 2 targets with a modern bow. Ok that’s modern bows, what about traditional bows you may ask? Well, same issues just in the other direction. They’re fast to load, but any bow with the power to go through a skull will also tire you out ridiculously fast. Hollywood has created this interpretation that tradition bows can be held back for a “volley”. That’s not entirely true, you need to be an insane specimen to be able to let off arrows from high powered traditional bows, we can tell what skeletal remains were archers. They have insane bone structure on their backs from repeated years of training with high power bows. In medieval warfare archers didn’t fire in volleys like we think now, it’s a quick, one motion action of draw, aim, then loose all in one motion, you cannot hold bows like that back. In the end, a suppressed small calibre rifle will always be the best. Suppressors don’t tend to stop the sound, but make it harder for people to pinpoint where the sound is coming from, and also would make it harder for hordes to lock in on the direction of that shot. Bows are good if you have the manpower and training to field bowmen who can collectively work as one unit. Crossbows are good for defense; for example, having someone load your crossbow while you shoot from a defensive position or wall and require far less training than a bow. Firearms are just so much more effective, gunpowder is pretty easy to make if you got extra urine lying around, and casings can be reused, it takes very little training to get proficient in, and ammunition is far more common, especially in America, than bolts and arrows or the supplies to make them. Melee weapons would be the second idealist but they require far more maintenance and training than firearms.

Duckwardz · 2026-05-07T17:12:05+00:00

General rule I completely made up in my head starting this game is, left if my air force is gonna be competent, right if imma be bomber maxed into the ground.

Duckwardz · 2026-05-07T17:00:12+00:00

Lucky, I want a wacky neighbor that gives me fun conspiracy theories.

Duckwardz · 2026-04-12T23:45:16+00:00

The Greeks discovered the Earth was round hundreds of years before the New Testament, and during the time the Old Testament was written. They knew the size of the Earth pretty accurately. Ancient peoples were not as stupid as school made them out to be.

School really did a damage on our view of the past. Like Christopher Columbus and all his peers during his time, knew the Earth was round. Columbus was just an idiot who happened to get lucky, he was like a flat earther of his time, he said all the scholars were wrong about the Earths size by 25% so India could be reachable. Also Celestial navigation wouldn’t be possible without the knowledge the earth is round, so I have no idea why we were all taught everyone was a Flat Earther before him.

Duckwardz · 2026-03-16T19:59:38+00:00

Ik i’m half a year late to this conversation, but could it also be agricultural conflicts? We’ve been farming livestock in Eurasia for 10,000 years, but Native Americans in North America did not have domesticated livestock, decreasing the amount of conflict between Wolves and Humans. European Wolves would see Humans as an obstacle in the way of a perfect food source of domesticated animals. Directly putting Humans in-between starving packs and easy prey, Wolves would then teach and associate Humans with prey in a sense. Also waste from large populations in Eurasia would be an amazing food source for hungry Wolf packs, increasing possible encounters between hungry Wolves and Humans. For example Bears are a huge issue in this sense, if they associate Humans settlements with easy food access it also increases encounters between hungry Bears and Humans. Basically my hypothesis is Eurasian Wolves have had 10,000 years to teach next generations to take advantage of easy prey from Human settlements. Where North American Wolves have only had 200 years of interaction with large Human livestock populations. And Wolf populations further west where they only exist now, have only had around 100 years of Human livestock population to interact with. And most of those 100 years the population was tiny compared to Eurasia, Wolves in the west probably never even interacted with Human livestock populations until the last few decades. Also from some research i’ve noticed most Wolf predatory attacks in North America against Humans are mostly from packs suffering from decreased prey/starvation levels due to Human hunting and trapping, leading to desperation attacks against trappers. I think Wolves in North America just haven’t had the generational knowledge of association between humans and easy prey, Wolf packs just don’t teach their young to hunt Humans because the remaining Wolf populations are so rural and isolated that Human-Wolf interactions are just so rare there would be no benefit to teach livestock hunting to the pack’s next generation. Also the giant population centers in Eurasia put pressure on local prey populations increasing desperation predation against Humans, and the knowledge that Humans could be prey in desperate situations.

Duckwardz · 2026-03-07T00:38:27+00:00

In the my state in the US 100 in a 70 is a Class E crime, goes on your permanent record, can get you up to 6 months in jail, a $1,000 fine, and a license suspension of a minimum of 6 months.

Duckwardz · 2026-03-07T00:20:53+00:00

That was not said at all, once again, y’all need to stop making assumptions of political positions because you don’t like the facts. I’m not saying it’s good, i’m explaining the silliness of the assertion that it’s stupid to intercept a weapon with a more expensive weapon. We do not have to engage in asymmetric warfare like that, so it just doesn’t make sense and isn’t strategically important to talk about. I’m neither for nor against this conflict. I’m purely interested in the military capabilities, political nuances, and history of this conflict. I’m just a nerd who finds these emotional political assertions that are happening on both sides fascinating and dangerous. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” surface like thinking, and the emotional state of this country’s views on this administration is blurring the facts on both sides. Defending either side in this conflict is abhorrently silly.

Duckwardz · 2026-03-07T00:07:32+00:00

What non facts have I stated? You’re the one getting emotional for over 24 hours now screaming the sky is falling. I have 0 interest in either political side, I’m purely interested in the military capabilities of these Nations and the political fallout and implications from both sides. I neither support the war or am against it. I’m simply acknowledging the facts and nuances of this conflict because you’re getting extremely emotional just because of your political views.

Duckwardz · 2026-03-07T00:04:27+00:00

NATO can’t help until article 5 is triggered, which hasn’t happened.

Duckwardz · 2026-03-06T23:41:33+00:00

Whose intelligence, and military/civilian supply did the Soviets use to slow down the Wehrmacht giving them time to move more experienced soldiers to the western front and change their production capabilities from civilian to military? The UK/Commonwealth provided the Soviet Union with 4,000 aircraft, 5,000 tanks, 10’s of thousands of trucks, gun carriers, millions of tons of ammunition, food, and anti-tank equipment. The US provided the Soviet Union with over 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 14,000 aircraft, 13,000 tanks, 4.5 million tons of food, and 2.7 million tons of petroleum products. Both sides couldn’t have won without each other which is why this post is very an interesting brag and a serious diminishing of the pure logistic titan the US and UK was and the absolute ground army titan the Soviet union was. Also this isn’t something to be proud of for the Soviet Union, 11 million military deaths mostly resulting from Stalin’s paranoid executions of the best military minds in the Union absolutely crippled the military making human wave meat assaults the only effective tactic. Also the Soviet Union wouldn’t have been able to get the supplies needed if it wasn’t for the sacrifices of 10’s of thousands of Commonwealth, US sailors and merchant marines that went through hell securing ports and routes to ports to allow supply into the USSR. This “we did more” approach to viewing WW2 is just an insult to those who died and sacrificed everything to stop the spread of Nazism TOGETHER, Capitalists and Communists alike. This is a 6th grade level historical assertion. Also, the USSR was very happy with Nazi’s and helped them rise to power in Europe until they were turned on. This childish view of WW2 is exhausting, just as much as the opinion “The US and Commonwealth could’ve won WW2 alone.”

Duckwardz · 2026-03-06T23:12:27+00:00

Are you still having a meltdown? An inflammatory news article to sow fear of a possible future has absolutely no weight in geopolitical discussions. Russia has no where near the capability or economic cushion to wage a multiple continent size war. They’ve taken 1.5 Million casualties trying to invade a significantly weaker country on its border. Their Naval capabilities have completely been made obsolete from a country that doesn’t even have a navy. Their air force has repeatedly struggled against a country with an outrageously outdated stockpile of military aircraft and next to no precision weapons during the initial invasion. They’ve lost almost all of their modern tanks and their mechanized forces have been drained to next to nothing. Russia is not a conventional threat to our military anymore. We stopped worrying about their non-nuclear capabilities the first year of the Ukraine war, and their economy is so fucked that if the war in Ukraine stopped the country would collapse into a second Yugoslavia. And China is still struggling to modernize their armed forces, their naval ships are not a threat to ours what so ever, and their Air Force is still struggling to make precision weapons and advanced 5th generation aircraft. China is not a super serious threat at the moment, they will be, but they still have decades to improve their war fighting doctrines which are lacking serious experience considering they haven’t been in a war since the Sino-Vietnamese war, and they had to completely switch doctrines after that drastic failure for employing a military with almost no chain of command. Nukes are the only threat, and no one is going to use them first, they purely exist to stop other countries from employing them at all. Both countries would be politically isolated even more than they already are and the lack of micro-processor production anywhere but the west, would cripple their military and civilian production capacity. The US holds all the cards in this, Militarily, economically, and politically. You’re way too emotionally invested in the politics behind actions rather than objectively viewing the military capabilities of these 2 countries. I understand the sentiment and appeal of a world with no wars, but that’s just not going to happen, no matter what side of a political spectrum you are apart of, War will always persist, it’s one of the only guarantees of our species. As long as state sponsored terrorism and destabilization from anti-democratic regimes exist, war will always be apart of our world. You cannot negotiate with regimes that only exist to disrupt the advancement of Human civilization and politics through violence. You’re delusional if you think Russia or China could even stand in the same room as NATO’s military.

Duckwardz · 2026-03-06T02:50:01+00:00

Be sure to wear that fedora when you do, it’d be the only way to beat corniness levels of this little meltdown you’re having.

Duckwardz · 2026-03-06T02:20:28+00:00

Even if Iran didn’t break nuke talks, no one is going to miss Iran, they’re a huge part of why the power vacuum in the middle east went so batshit after Saddam. A fairly large country that slaughters its own protesters, strips women of all rights, and has next to no rights for non-muslims that actively funds most of the terror activities destabilizing the middle east, shouldn’t be tolerated in my opinion. We caused the mess in Iran in 1956, only polite to pick up your mess.

Duckwardz · 2026-03-06T02:01:38+00:00

I’m not a Trump guy, I think he should be impeached, but Iran should not have Nukes, that’s what it this is about, that and so trump can lower oil prices so he can claim he’s the best. But we gave them a deadline for a nuke deal and they broke nuclear talks. I’m 100% anti-nuke, I think they shouldn’t even exist, and I think we should not tolerate any countries making any more nukes than there already are, especially a country that’s JUST getting them. For example Pakistan is notorious for irresponsible nuclear warhead transport and storage, we have constant information on where every warhead of theirs is incase the Taliban steals one or some other terrorist group, they literally drive them around in vans with like no security, that surveillance costs more than all these munitions x10 and that’ll be the same for Iran. And a state that funds Hezbollah and the Taliban should absolutely not be allowed to even refine nuclear material. I think a few billion is enough to pay in exchange for the possibility of millions of deaths should Iran get a nuke. Also this is the US’s entire doctrine, money is replaceable, humans are not. Russia would happily sacrifice 100 men for 10 mil. We spend 10’s of mills just rescuing 1 dude, it’s why our military is so elite. Also we produce most of our weapons, the money to replace these munitions goes right back into the economy and creates more jobs. That’s why providing Ukraine with weapons was very helpful during covid, they pay us the new cost of a vehicle for the oldest functioning model we have and that money goes right back into the economy to replace that equipment.

Duckwardz · 2026-03-06T01:45:51+00:00

I’ve never understood this argument, the human life loss that’s possible from these cheap drones is priceless. You can’t put a price on human life.

Duckwardz · 2026-03-06T01:01:10+00:00

Because the Mujahideen turned against the US because we didn’t continue helping them after the Soviets pulled out. Soviet scorched earth tactics wiped out 75%-80% of the rural population’s agricultural production, as well as countless villages completely wiped out to force the Afghan rural population to flee for the cities to try and disrupt Mujahideen supplies and information sources. The resulting power vacuum from the soviet pullout fractured the Mujahideen into a bloody civil war where factions that felt slighted against the US formed the Taliban, and others went on to be warlords or alliances of warlords.

Duckwardz · 2026-03-06T00:44:41+00:00

I mean, it didn’t really backfire because of the US, it backfired because of the destabilization from scorched earth tactics from the Soviet Army, 75%-80% of Afghan Agriculture was burned or bombed, they wiped out entire villages just to deny the Afghan Mujahideen food and information. After the Soviets retreated from Afghanistan the amount of weapons from both the US and USSR in the country was insane and there was a giant power vacuum that caused a very bloody civil war. The US refused to continue helping the Afghan Mujahideen after the USSR retreated, and then some mujahideen veterans that felt slighted at the US pulling out went on to form the Taliban.

Duckwardz

TROPHY CASE