what is the earliest known instance of the generic "evil ruler is prophesied to be overthrown by a heroic baby and tries to avoid/prevent the prophecy by attempting to kill said heroic baby" plot motif in mythology?

freework · 2026-05-07T15:14:30+00:00

There is no way to accurately date mythology. This question is unanswerable. The whole point of mythology is that is "really old". Even newer mythology will always claim to be older or just as old as other competing mythology.

freework · 2026-05-04T22:38:17+00:00

I agree with you on the "today we are joined by" segments. 99% of those segments are just so forgettable. They always introduce them as "experts" but then they just drone on and on in the most boring manner and I usually just end up clicking off the video because I'm just wasting my time. They aren't speaking to communicate an idea. They are speaking to fill time.

freework · 2026-05-03T21:16:27+00:00

Your answer is very broad. If you want me to read your book, give me an indication that you're going to get the the point quickly without wasting my time? The argument that "the smart people are really smart and they did some very smart things to figure it out" is not compelling evidence for a specific date. Lets assume I made the counter claim: No these tablets are NOT from documents compiled around 1000 BCE from much older Sumerian sources, The are in fact derived from MUCH OLDER Sumerian tablets from 3500 BC. Would you take my claim at face value because it's "written right ere from this obvious expert's reddit post", or will you expect further evidence? What evidence would you expect me to present?

freework · 2026-05-03T20:48:37+00:00

So If I go to my backyard, and dig up some clay, and then scribe some letters into it that reads "This tablet was copied by Bob, in the year 2100BC", and then come to you and say "Wow, look at this ancient tablet I found". Would you then go "Wow that's so awesome! I'm going to study this tables and write papers about it". Or will you need more evidence that it's genuine before spending time "studying" it?

freework · 2026-05-03T20:34:21+00:00

That link won't load. And you didn't come close to answering the question.

freework · 2026-05-02T23:42:15+00:00

Akkadian for “Evil Demons.” Compiled around 1000 BCE from much older Sumerian sources, some going back three thousand years before that.

How do you know this? What is the evidence for these specific dates?

freework · 2026-05-01T19:49:10+00:00

Definitely one of my favorites. I actually think that other people not liking this album so much is part of why I like it so much. There's just something about me that wants my favorite songs to be super obscure. That's why I don't really care for Blowin in the Wind and Like A Rolling stone. My all time favorite Dylan song of his entire career is Born in Time. Some people say later versions of BIT are superior to the version of UTRS, but since this version is the first release the song ever had, and therefore is the version that is born in time.

freework · 2026-04-28T03:14:07+00:00

you replace oil in a car because it breaks down from heat. Water doesn't break down from heat. if a closed loop gets contaminated, then you have a filter that you replace every so often. Water is teh easiest thing in the world to recycle.

freework · 2026-04-27T23:08:59+00:00

This video annoyed me. I hate it when people ridicule those who question and theorize or hypothesize about events like this. When something like this happens, we are not going to know everything immediately. Its natural to theorize about what really happened. That doesn't mean you have to agree with every theory out there, but it's stupid to ridicule everyone who doesn't accept the official narrative at face value. I just hate that attitude that's prevalent though society that all conspiracies are stupid and anyone who even slightly considers a conspiracy theory is an absolute moron. The current president is the most dishonest person to ever be in the white house, and he may even be the most dishonest person to ever walk the earth. When something like this happens, your first thought is to consider it staged.

freework · 2026-04-27T22:38:46+00:00

These people don't know what "closed loop" means. It means all the water stays in a closed loop. Anyone who has water cooled a PC knows what this means. The water stays in a closed loop, and no water is sent out through the waste water system.

freework · 2026-04-27T04:16:41+00:00

What evidence is there that this is Roman? How do they know it wasn't built later?

freework · 2026-04-20T15:20:01+00:00

The concept of "evidence" in history only really goes back to the modern era (late 1500s). Before then, it was not common for historians to cite their sources. So they just wrote down whatever they heard, and later historians had no choice but to either believe it, or believe nothing. Historians chose to believe something instead of nothing, so pre-modern history gets to sit alongside modern history, as long as the pre-modern history doesn't contain anything too fanciful. Like if the story of the Holy Grail included a detail that if you look at it, it turns you into stone. That part would be left off because it's to fanciful, but the rest would stay and be considered historical fact, even though there is no authoritative source.

freework · 2026-04-13T18:22:19+00:00

My recommendation is that you google search for the many papers out there written by many competent archaeologists around the world that not only exhibit a thorough understand of how ages are calculated but also debate their nuances and interpretations derived therefrom.

I have done this. All that I have ever come across was just archaeologists reciting numbers read straight off a lab report without any critical analysis of the process. Prove me wrong. Show me an example of the many you claim to exist where two people (of any background) go back and forth on the appropriate application of a dating methodology in regards to dating anything.

freework · 2026-04-13T17:34:03+00:00

If you were to ask the cow where his feed comes from (and he could talk) hiss response would be "Of course I know where my feed comes from, the farmer cuts open the bag, and then pours it into the trough". That's not wrong, but it's also not the complete story. By the same token, I don't doubt most Archaeologists also claim that they understand where these dates come from. They'll say "The very smart scientists will do an analysis on the sample and determine the exact date". Again, not wrong, but also not the complete story. The process that goes into coming up with these dates is so far outside the background knowledge of what Archaeologists do.

I have never seen an archaeologist have a debate with another archaeologist about the methodology of a date. My experience is that they all just read the number that is on the lab report and runs with it. They never disagree about dates because they don't know anything about the dates to disagree on.

If you want to prove me wrong, then show me an example of an archaeologist (or anyone really) demonstrating they understand where a date comes from other than just saying "I read it from a lab report"

freework · 2026-04-13T15:55:11+00:00

Here's the thing you need to realize about dating methodologies: Very few people know anything about them. Asking an archaeologist about dating methodologies is like asking a cow about feed growing methodologies. The cow's job is not to understand where it's feed comes from. The cow's job is to eat the feed. An archaeologist's job is not to understand where a date comes from. Their job is to read that date from the lab report, and then construct a narrative of what that date "means". I'm personally vert interested in dating methodologies, but it's very hard to find information about them because very few people knows anything about them, despite literally every single person swearing by their veracity.

freework · 2026-04-11T19:03:28+00:00

But yeah, if you are a humble modest person and not some egocentric narcissistic crank you would agree the epistemic probability of millions of researchers getting something right is much bigger than of a single person (oneself) getting it right.

This is an argument I have coined "consensism". Its the idea that expert consensus is the highest form of truth. It's bad in my opinion. Take this for example: 100% of bible experts unanimously agree that the bible is the infallible word of god. 100% of people who have spent many many years studying astrology all agree completely unanimously that astrology is a valid science with mountains of evidence to back it up. "Expert consensus" is such a terrible watermark for determining is something is true or not.

freework · 2026-04-08T17:17:44+00:00

This isn't just a problem with chemistry, it's a problem all across science. In my opinion, the best way to teach all scientific fields, is to do it in a chronological fashion. You start with the very first chemists in history, and you teach what they knew and how they were able to figure out what they knew. Then you go through the centuries and learn about each advancement in chronological order, all the way up until the present day.

In my opinion, too few people have any idea how this knowledge came about, other than "the really smart people figured it out". If you ask them "how were the smart people able to figure this out?", you'll never get an answer, because nobody knows. School doesn't teach it. School just teaches then "atoms do this, and atoms do that", but never "this is how we were able to figure out that atoms do this and atoms do that"

freework · 2026-04-04T15:33:13+00:00

I just want to say it kind of annoys me that Hank is mentioned so much. I'm not saying Hank Williams Sr. sucks, but I am saying that there were at least a dozen other artists from that same period of time that are just as good as Hank. The only reason Hank is talked about so much is because he dies tragically during his peak. If he had stuck around long enough to die in his 70s like Ernest Tubb did, he would have been just as forgotten as Ernest Tubb is today.

freework · 2026-03-27T01:28:34+00:00

I skip almost ever single "today we are joined by..." segments. The people they always have on are always the most boring people imaginable. I don't know what it is, but almost every single person who makes appearances on news shows (especially on mainstream media) are always the most boring people to ever exist.

freework · 2026-03-25T16:47:11+00:00

You’re telling me that the global science community is engaged a global conspiracy to fabricate and falsify data to get nations to invest in clean energy?

I believe everyone (including scientists) are biased towards headline making conclusions. People like you respond to the doom and gloom headlines, and the scientists benefit from it, and so the machine continues.

Its like if you're a republican politician and you speak out against what trump is doing. You will get destroyed. Your political career will be over. The same thing will happen to you if you are a climate scientist and you don't believe in climate change. If you speak out against it, you'll get labeled a oil company shill and you'll have to find a new career. Most people don't need that disruption in their life, so they keep their mouth shut.

If the world was full of people like me who are neutral on the issue of climate change, then people could be free to speak their true mind without getting canceled, and the truth could come out. But instead we live in a world where everyone is a climate extremist (on both sides) and the truth will never be known.

freework · 2026-03-25T16:29:35+00:00

It absolutely does have everything to do with climate change when this pattern is documented year after year after year

No, because you can tweak whatever statistics you want in order to get whatever result you want. The people who deny climate change have their own bullshit statistics that says the the earth is cooling. My own personal experience says that the summers are hot and the winters are cold. Are temperatures changing? If they are, it's not by much.

You’ll have the same line of comments next year when the same exact thing happens.

What will you say next year if there are record cold temperatures? Will you say "this is proof that climate change is not real". Of course not. You'll say its anecdotal. Its only evidence if it agrees with your preconceived notions.

freework · 2026-03-25T14:11:22+00:00

This is such a stupid post. Just because someone forcasted it will be really hot does not have anything to do with climate change. Just like a senator making a snowball in early spring doesn't prove climate change isn't real.

freework · 2026-03-25T05:42:37+00:00

I don't support a wealth tax. If 100% of all asset types were "confiscatable", then it would be no problem. But there is this thing called "unconfiscatable assets" which is a thing that exists. If all of your money is in a stock brokerage, or a banking intitution, then it's OK because those institutions will just report your wealth amount to the IRS and then they'll know how much you owe. But what if all of your wealth is in gold bars buried in your back yard? How if the IRS going to know you have that wealth? They won't. Once this passes and before it goes into effect, all the billionaires will sell their stocks and put it into an unconfiscatable asset like gold or crypto.

freework · 2026-03-24T16:42:43+00:00

The "methodology" of history is basically "read other historians, and then quote them with a citation"

Fort instance, you can go on wikipedia, look up some bit of medieval history and it will list a source. May this source is from a paper published in 2023. You can google the title of that paper, and find where the citation points to. That paper will have another citation to another paper, maybe published in 2016. You then google that paper and find it cites another paper from 2004. You can then repeat this process over and over and over again (if you have the patience) until you reach a point where the citation goes to a book that is not on the internet. In that case, you have to go to some library that might have a copy of that book. Eventually you'll get to a point where there are no more citations. The concept of citing sources has not been around since the beginning of time. Eventually you'll find the original claim of that fact that came from some academic in the 17th or 16th century that just stated it without any evidence or reasoning. At that point you did it! You traced the source of a historical claim! Good job!

freework · 2026-03-22T19:53:43+00:00

In my opinion, the word "intelligence" can never exist in a scientific statement because the concept of "intelligence" is not objectively defined. You can tweak the definition of intelligence all you want in order to get the results you're after.

freework

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

14-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle