Thread of some surprising things that are older than other things
Notre Dame predates the Maori settlement of New Zealand
Oxford is older than the Aztecs
The Great Pyramid of Giza was completed before Woolly Mammoths went extinct
The University of Bologna is quite literally older than "Time Immemorial" (1189, the beginning of the reign of King Richard I)
A bridge still in use in Trier is nearly a thousand years older than the Inca Empire
Socrates is about as old as the oldest Nazca Lines
Polynesians started settling the Hawaiian Islands about 500 years after the fall of Rome
Nintendo is older than sliced bread
The Taj Mahal is younger than Shakespeare
The Cherokee Alphabet postdates the U.S. Constitution
Alexander the Great got to India about 600 years before Bantu speakers got to South Africa
Cleopatra lived closer to the creation of the iPhone than to the construction of the Great Pyramid
Harvard is older than Hasidic Judaism
The fax machine predates the telephone
The start of the Great Wall of China predates Islam
The Sámi identity postdates Protestantism
You can probably think of a lot more than these examples. There really are so many things that feel modern, or dated to a particular era, that just aren't.
Göbekli Tepe was coextensive in time with the giant sloth
The grandson of the tenth U.S. president, John Tyler (born 1790), is still alive (born 1928).
The Last Samurai died twelve years after Abraham Lincoln
Order of these Supreme Court cases:
Katz 1967: electronic microphone placing outside a phonebooth needs a warrant
Kyllo 2001: thermograms of a residence need a warrant
Jardines 2013: dog sniffs on curtilage need a warrant
Ramos 2020: juries in criminal cases must be unanimous
The first vending machine might have been for holy water:
Smart people tend to earn higher educations and higher incomes, and to work in more prestigious occupations.
This holds for people from excellent family backgrounds (Utopian Sample) and comparing siblings from the same families!
This is true, meaningful, and the causal relationship runs strongly from IQ to SES, with little independent influence of SES. Just look at how similar the overall result and the within-family results are!
But also look at fertility in this table: quite the reverse!
The reason this is hard to explain has to do with the fact that kids objectively have more similar environments to one another than to their parents.
In fact, for a cultural theory to recapitulate regression to the mean across generations, these things would need to differ!
Another fact that speaks against a cultural explanation is that the length of contact between fathers and sons doesn't matter for how correlated they are in status.
We can see this by leveraging the ages parents die at relative to said sons.
The internet gives everyone access to unlimited information, learning tools, and the new digital economy, so One Laptop Per Child should have major benefits.
The reality:
Another study just failed to find effects on academic performance.
This is one of those findings that's so much more damning than it at first appears.
The reason being, laptop access genuinely provides people with more information than was available to any kid at any previous generation in history.
If access was the issue, this resolves it.
And yet, nothing happens
This implementation of the program was more limited than other ones that we've already seen evaluations for though. The laptops were not Windows-based and didn't have internet, so no games, but non-infinite info too
So, at least in this propensity score- or age-matched data, there's no reason to chalk the benefit up to the weight loss effects.
This is a hint though, not definitive. Another hint is that benefits were observed in short trials, meaning likely before significant weight loss.
We can be doubly certain about that last hint because diabetics tend to lose less weight than non-diabetics, and all of the observed benefit has so far been observed in diabetic cohorts, not non-diabetic ones (though those directionally show benefits).
The reason why should teach us something about commitment
The government there has previously attempted crackdowns twice in the form of mano dura—hard hand—, but they failed because they didn't hit criminals hard enough
Then Bukele really did
In fact, previous attempts backfired compared to periods in which the government made truces with the gangs.
The government cracking down a little bit actually appeared to make gangs angrier!
You'd have been in your right to conclude 'tough on crime fails', but you'd be wrong.
You have to *actually* enforce the law or policy won't work. Same story with three-strike laws, or any other measure
Incidentally, when did the gang problems begin for El Salvador? When the U.S. exported gang members to it