You are correct. The word "homo" literally means human.
Homo sapiens are the only living humans, but Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthalus are all humans also.
However we usually use the term "archaic human" or even change human to "hominid" to prevent confusion between "modern humans".
You weren't wrong, but this is a kind of jargon which can confuse people.
FYI you accidentally dropped a zero, it's 200,000 years.
"Totally retracred or cut" means either the foreskin is cut or that it's just pulled back.
We don't know if it's cut or not, we can only speculate it looks like one.
"Lalalala you can't send me to concentration camps if I can't hear Trump lalalala"
Abuse isn't the solution to miseducation.
A lot of these times departments are trying to justify their own existence by using data in self serving ways.
If you are reading a spreadsheet on user data you might notice that people are going into search, quickly finding something and leaving the site.
Your boss is screaming at you that the higher ups want more "engagement" so you start tweaking the search.
After a few button presses you see that on average people are searching, clicking on a video and watching for a bit, watching another video, going back into search and looking up more videos, scrolling and then finally clicking and watching a full video.
You run to your boss and brags that search now has 3x engagement as people are watching more videos for longer per search.
We all get a promotion and celebrate how much better search is now that people are spending time in it longer.
If you think about a number line, multiplying 2 by -1 takes you to -2. Multiply it again by -1 and its back at 2.
If you think of the arrow from 0 to 2, all you did was rotate that arrow by 180 degrees to point along the negative axis and back again.
Multiplication by -1 is already a rotation of 180 degrees!
All were doing now is extending that concept to 90 degrees by imagining a second line perpendicular to the original number line.
Two 90 degree rotations need to get to -1 to complete the 180 degree rotation we already expect in normal multiplication.
Giving it the symbol i, this means definitionally i * i = -1. It has to because -1 flips us around the other way on the number line.
That means i is the square root of negative 1.
Any values that use i to store information, even time, could be called "imaginary time". Really it's just constantly oscillating between the real and imaginary spaces like a constantly spinning arrow.
A particle is also a wave, a wave moves back and forth between -X and X passing 0 every time.
Now, when you measure this particle and it happens to be at zero, sometimes it moves towards X afterwards and sometimes it moves towards -X.
For the scientists however, all they can measure is that it's at 0 and half the time it randomly goes one way or the other with 50/50 probability.
To explain this, scientists imagine the particle has more than 0, but it has a secret momentum hidden into it telling it to deflect positively or negatively.
Imagine a circle instead of a line. Now instead of crossing zero, you rotate around 0 and hit a Y and -Y axis with X and -X unchanged.
That y axis that contains the hidden momentum of the particle is called "imaginary" because scientists love loaded terms that are unhelpful to understanding lol.
You can just not reply. It's weird you keep up typing replies to me and then get mad when I respond.
Do you need the last word that badly?
Your points are correct but I think you misunderstand what my analogy was intended to do. None of this makes it a bad analogy.
I don't disagree with you that reading opens the doors to so many other things than chess does.
I also never intended to imply chess is a transferable skill. Chess skill, for matters of this discussion, could be entirely useless outside of the specific context of a chess game.
The reason i made the analogy betwen learning to read and reading for fun is because I'm trying to illustrate the difference of 500 ELO chess and 2500 ELO chess.
If you play 500 ELO chess you DO NOT KNOW what 2500 ELO chess is, you could not explain the reasons behind a single move which is made in strategy, you can barely identify how to move your horse.
...it's not an actual apology, it's a rhetorical device. Was that not clear?
If we're giving each other mutual advice on phrasing, I'd remove this particular rhetorical device from your repertoire. Strawmanning me as being upset about some irrelevant thing and insincere apologizing for it is unproductive because now I either have to address the strawman or I could use my own rhetorical device by taking your apology literally and use it against you.
The setup I was given wasn't really a productive thing to build on, and that was just as clear as the phoniness in your apology.
I don't really understand why you feel the need to second guess my own assessment of my own mind.
I understand why you think I'm doing that, and it's probably related to the part lower down you admit you aren't really caring about what I say to you and what point I'm actually intending to make.
To once again clarify. At no point have I second guessed your own assessment of your own mind.
I simply pointed out that your assessment of the mind you **do not possess?? (one in which you have fully studied the thing) can't honestly be guessed at and this is an existing problem for everyone.
I'm not interested in an explanation either, just to be clear.
Then what are we doing here man? I'm responding for the sole purpose of explaining this point to you.
I think you need to consider why you're still responding here because all I have for you are more explanations until you understand this basic concept.
Each time you keep drawing comparisons that paint me as naïve and childlike. It's perhaps not intentional but the end result is tremendously insulting, hence why I'm not interested in further talk on the subject.
Since you mention you love logic puzzles how about that I instead of a comparison:
You are a prisoner in a room with 2 doors and 2 guards. One of the doors will guide you to freedom and behind the other is a hangman–you don't know which is which, but the guards do know.
One of the guards always tells the truth and the other always lies. You don't know which one is the truth-teller or the liar either. However both guards know each other.
You have to choose and open one of these doors, but you can only ask a single question to one of the guards.
You ask both guards "are you interested in further talk on the subject?"
The first guard stays silent. The second guard says "Each time you keep drawing comparisons that paint me as naïve and childlike. It's perhaps not intentional but the end result is tremendously insulting, hence why I'm not interested in further talk on the subject." And then continues ranting for 4 more long paragraphs.
Which guard is lying and which one is telling the truth?
With regards to learning new things, the world of human experience is vast. I am not shutting the door on chess out of petulance. I do so knowing the journey I would need to take is incompatible with my own preferences for discovery and growth. To my mind it is a distilled competitive logic puzzle. I don't like logic puzzles of any complexity, and I particularly don't like pared down ones with no set dressing or storytelling.
Yep, no need to justify anything. I know i sound like a broken record here haha but you keep bringing up justifications for why you don't prioritize this hobby when what your priorities are was never really in question.
My point is still strictly about difference between learning X and doing X, and how the learner can't access the mind of the doer before they've finished learning.
I am actually quite happy to engage in puzzle solving - it's one of the things I do for a living. However there the puzzles are more cooperative and with many, many more facets to them. They can be solved in a huge number of ways and with a variety of different skills.
Thats got my interest piqued. In an abstract way or you literally solve recreational style puzzles for a living?
There's this show Ludwig about a puzzle solver who gets pulled into a murder investigation.
I'm explaining this because it seems you need it spelled out rather explicitly.
I don't need anything spelled out. I understand on my end, I'm trying to explain a basic concept to you (difference between thing and learning about thing) and it seems like the problem of why I'm not getting through isn't that you're aren't capable of understanding but you're not willing to concede I might have a point because we're now in an adversarial sort of context and you're just I think in "winning" mode from here on out and won't give me an inch.
Particularly as you seem to have rather strange ideas about who you're talking to. I'm nearly 40 and your comment about not recognising past versions of myself could not possibly be further from the truth. The various iterations of myself have been built atop the old ones. The eleven year old boy is still in there, as is the teenager, twenty-something, and the several versions of me from my 30s.
For example this. You obviously understand the difference between teenage your tastes and your tastes now, you just don't want to give it to me.
Which well, that's sort of how we're encouraged to act online anyway.
I don't necessarily know everything I like, but I've tried a great many things and have a firm understanding of what kinds of activities I dislike. I can also extrapolate fairly well, and it's not like chess is an obscure interest such as shin-kicking. The journey and destination both look rather dull to me, whereas many others do not. I cannot do everything in one lifetime and must choose. Chess has had its chance with me. It blew it. The same is true for gambling, as it happens. I have tried it in various forms and found it universally dull. I also don't enjoy ales, gloomy literature, tennis, or horror movies. There's much about those things I don't know and I intend to keep it that way in order to explore other potential interests. Things that I hopefully won't be bored by, or at least I enjoy some element of the journey.
Yeah I know, chess doesn't fit into your goals and you don't have an interest in the game at the current level you're playing at.
Are you talking about the racist xenophobic province who abuse the notwithstanding clause to violate human rights?
The Quebec who bans freedom of speech, books and discriminates against religion?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/fatemeh-anvari-removed-from-grade-three-classroom-1.6278381
https://legaljournal.princeton.edu/bill-96-a-violation-of-english-speaking-rights-in-quebec/
Are those the bastions of diversity and culture you're talking about?