Cripple. History Major. Irritable and in constant pain. Vaguely Left-Wing.

  • 11.4K Posts
  • 16.2K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Aquileo | cake
Cake day: July 21st, 2023

Aquileo | help-circle






  • Hey Pug, I thought you were leaving this place? Can’t quite let someone you hate get away with being correct?

    Sorry for coming back to check on a ping, I know my constant posting is unchanged from my previous usage.

    I’m also sorry that you’re assmad over being called out, with evidence, on your utter bullshit. :)

    And shit, you talk about me constantly. I’m your number one obsession. If I insisted on responding every time you said stupid bullshit about me, I’d have twice the comment count I actually do, lmao.

    Sorry that your obsession isn’t mutual, sweetheart.

    Sorry I call out your actions, are you sure you’re not the teseract dev? You hate when people document your actions and crash out when people do.

    It’s particularly amusing since I actually backed up my claim with evidence, while your claim of “stalking” amounts to a handful of downvotes over the course of a single day.









  • Sky lanterns require an open and continuous flame, which is considerably more troublesome to combine with cargo of any sort. Early manned hot-air balloons were filled by gas generated on the ground, which requires an understanding that it is the gas which generates lift through buoyancy.

    Concept behind hot air balloon understood.

    I’m not well-read on the history of Chinese scientific thought, but it could very easily fit into what I said in the comment: "If you lack the concepts behind the invention, the only way to discover it is by accident" That’s how most things were discovered before early modernity.

    Knowing how to make something, especially something discovered by accident or passed on by practice rather than taught as an application of theory, is different than knowing why it works, and understanding why something works opens up a much broader range of applications and elaborations.




  • I wouldn’t even go that far. Having iron weaponry when your opponents have bronze is an advantage, yes … but I really doubt that it’s a decisive advantage. It’s not like a bronze-wielding army is suddenly going to become helpless against a foe with iron weapons. If the bronze-age army has better numbers, better tactics/strategy, and/or better motivation, they may very well defeat an iron-age enemy in battle.

    A few times, sure, but on a historical scale, it’s a ticking time bomb. One of the advantages of iron, other than being significantly superior for usage in edged weapons (armor is a mixed case), is that it is much more plentiful and cheap, and doesn’t require distant supply lines to be maintained in war time in most cases.

    “Their swords are better than our swords” is bad, but not necessarily spelling doom. “Their swords are better than our swords and they can make 5x as many for the same time and cost, and they aren’t reliant on their trade ships not being pirated or sunk by storms to continue making them” is a bit dire.