rootsbreadandmakka

I don't really remember the early 2000s, I was too young, but I imagine this is what it was like.

*my title is the original headline, the archive link has the current revised headline

I feel like everyone I know that works in tech lives in the bay or Seattle. NYC as the center of finance makes sense to me, DC as the center of gov't obviously, Boston/New England as a center of learning also makes sense, but why have these places ended up as the center of tech?

An explanation for those not following: this is HICPAC, which advises the CDC on infection control policies. They’re trying to update a 2007 document on preventing transmission of infectious agents in healthcare settings, which will direct infection control practices across the US. One of the things they were going to recommend was that surgical masks are equivalent to N95s, and that surgical masks should be the default PPE for healthcare workers caring for patients with respiratory viruses. They did recommend N95s for viruses like measles and tuberculosis and “pandemic phase respiratory viruses,” including Covid. But not only does this fly in the face of what we have learned about aerosol transmission of respiratory viruses during the Covid pandemic, it’s also a weakening of the 2007 guidelines, which state “respiratory protection requires the use of a respirator…” and only recommends surgical masks for blood or body fluid exposure.

"they're freedom fighters and we felt like we were fighting for our freedom every day too where we lived at" - Meth

Okay, hear me out, I was just looking at pictures of beavers and thought to myself, what if someone used a beaver dam for hydropower? I mean my first thought is of course that wouldn't work...unless? I mean I know nothing about dam construction or hydropower, so I can't actually disprove this to myself. Why wouldn't this work? Or could it?

Couldn’t decide whether to post this in the dunk tank or here

also

have to justify the attack on Lebanon somehow

also why don't we have a burning Israeli flag emoji?

Pretty sure vaccines did eradicate rubella

Actually getting measles helps your brain grow

In the popular understanding of Marxism there is a mode of production that comes before capitalism which is the feudal mode of production. Recently though I've been seeing (and it seems it's been a debate for awhile) things about how feudalism doesn't actually exist, which seems to come from two authors: Susan Reynolds and another woman who I can't remember. Of course then it will often be said "well feudalism in its Marxist sense exists, this is referring to the non-marxist use of 'feudalism.'" The main thesis seems to be (as far as I can understand) that there was no standard of "feudalism" and what is referred to as "feudalism" differs greatly across time and geography.

I'm wondering if someone who knows more about this can help me square this Marxist theory (which I also understand I don't have a great handle on either). But does this call certain aspects of Marxism into question - namely this idea of feudalism synthesizing into capitalism? Does the Marxist historiography of the Middle Ages through the Early Modern period need to be reworked? Although it seems the "feudalism does not exist" theory specifically excludes Marxism - so what is the difference then between the Marxist and non-Marxist understanding of feudalism? And further, if feudalism doesn't exist, what is the feudal mode of production? Hoping there's someone here who can help provide insight into any of these questions. Thanks.