Knitting isn't so obvious as all that. As a person who's done both that and weaving, weaving is much faster and uses less yarn. When you have to spin every thread you make on a drop spindle, you're not really looking for new methods that use twice the yarn.
Plus, given the long time it takes to make clothes of any kind, people kept clothes for a lifetime. You're probably not interested in a method that springs a hole one year in and the whole sock unravels.
What if knitting was invented dozens of times and just didn't really catch on?
Once *spinning wheels* were around, suddenly knitting made a lot more sense. Early spinning wheels weren't great at the kind of thin, strong yarn you needed for weaving, but it could produce tons of soft knitting yarn in a fraction the time. (Hence why most modern spinners use wheels.) At that point it makes sense that knitting would take off as it hadn't before.
Gosh. I already didn't want to live in Belarus, but that desire has greatly intensified.
> captive tigers who are professional wildlife photography models.
This almost immediately brings to mind a scene of tigers organizing into a union. I would hope that the tigers get good benefits, but my understanding of the modeling industry is that it's not very good to most of the models, and it seems no different for tigers.
That Chicago article is interesting. I feel like the thing that would most readily send up alarm bells is the semi-frequent reference to ideas formed by pop culture, but that's an explanation generated by somebody who's already not inclined to believe Chicago conspiracy theories. ACX had those for/against synthesis papers and the anonymous book reviews; maybe the next great Things of Things contest could be dual, rival papers on obscure subjects, one factual and the other built on a house of lies. It would be very in flavor for a blog which previously hosted a series of Intellectual Turing Test papers.
The conspiracy historian has convinced me that Chicago was more than just a couple farmhouses in the 1830s, and that there's inaccuracies in the dating of the construction of several major buildings in Chicago, but nothing beyond that.
I don't really understand what's impressive about the Chicago post. Right off the bat, the photo of "Princess Street" is pretty clearly Princes Street, Edinburgh. Everything else I bothered to check showed the same quality of research. For example, most of the times when he invites you to look for newspaper articles, there are plenty. In all it seems to be a mixture of straightforward mistakes and willful pedantry of the form "this random map got the location of a building wrong, isn't that suspicious?"
Knitting isn't so obvious as all that. As a person who's done both that and weaving, weaving is much faster and uses less yarn. When you have to spin every thread you make on a drop spindle, you're not really looking for new methods that use twice the yarn.
Plus, given the long time it takes to make clothes of any kind, people kept clothes for a lifetime. You're probably not interested in a method that springs a hole one year in and the whole sock unravels.
What if knitting was invented dozens of times and just didn't really catch on?
Once *spinning wheels* were around, suddenly knitting made a lot more sense. Early spinning wheels weren't great at the kind of thin, strong yarn you needed for weaving, but it could produce tons of soft knitting yarn in a fraction the time. (Hence why most modern spinners use wheels.) At that point it makes sense that knitting would take off as it hadn't before.
Well, that's my hypothesis anyway.
Gosh. I already didn't want to live in Belarus, but that desire has greatly intensified.
> captive tigers who are professional wildlife photography models.
This almost immediately brings to mind a scene of tigers organizing into a union. I would hope that the tigers get good benefits, but my understanding of the modeling industry is that it's not very good to most of the models, and it seems no different for tigers.
That Chicago article is interesting. I feel like the thing that would most readily send up alarm bells is the semi-frequent reference to ideas formed by pop culture, but that's an explanation generated by somebody who's already not inclined to believe Chicago conspiracy theories. ACX had those for/against synthesis papers and the anonymous book reviews; maybe the next great Things of Things contest could be dual, rival papers on obscure subjects, one factual and the other built on a house of lies. It would be very in flavor for a blog which previously hosted a series of Intellectual Turing Test papers.
The conspiracy historian has convinced me that Chicago was more than just a couple farmhouses in the 1830s, and that there's inaccuracies in the dating of the construction of several major buildings in Chicago, but nothing beyond that.
I don't really understand what's impressive about the Chicago post. Right off the bat, the photo of "Princess Street" is pretty clearly Princes Street, Edinburgh. Everything else I bothered to check showed the same quality of research. For example, most of the times when he invites you to look for newspaper articles, there are plenty. In all it seems to be a mixture of straightforward mistakes and willful pedantry of the form "this random map got the location of a building wrong, isn't that suspicious?"
Clearly you know more than I do about Chicago!
That case report is unbelievable - where did you find it?
A discussion of Catholic sexual ethics on Discord, actually.