A.I. is a clever way to export electricity.

Tiktok to get Murdoch'd like Myspace. That is, of course, the plan. The result, a migration to Facebook (again).

Thats only 25M in 2025 dollars.

Still not enough to afford the house I grew up in in San Jose.

This is a solved case, they were used for textiles. But to admit this would break history, so instead it is constantly rattled academically. Put one next to the Voynich Manuscript in the Museum or Jurassic Technology.

The cause behind this narrative hustle is the industrial historical arrogation which teaches that knitting was not invented until 1000 years after "The Romans". They had textiles, weaving, but no knitting.

This is early mere patent protection during the capitol rush of industrialism, claiming devices which were not actually invented as pretended, and therefor should have no claim to copyrights. The cotton gin was not invented in 1793.

Moreover it is a supremely ignorant and abstract notion, showing how detached academia is from reality. Anybody with time on their hands and some vines may invent weaving, knotting, knitting, and with metal slivers many ways to make pins. There has never been a people without this technology.

The cotton gin was not invented in 1793, but the claim wasn't a narrative hustle.

The short staple cotton gin was invented in 1793.

Coming up with a possible use is a very long way from being able to declare this "solved". There are many such claims. For the idea you discuss, a problem is that the projections were balls - not the easiest of things to dislodge loops from, which you would have to do at every step.

My understanding is that this would be equivalent to loom knitting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spool_knitting). Is it possible that loom knitting was invented earlier but needle knitting was not?

What is the matter with the Voynich Manuscript?

I'm a little lost here. Your argument is that this is part of a grand conspiracy in academia to protect. . . big textile?

The thing about conspiracies is that there tends to be a purpose behind them. What would be the point of this one? That the cotton gin couldn't be patented? How would that possibly impact any single person today? What would be the incentive for continuing this conspiracy?

In general, historians are pretty quick to correct mistakes from their past interpretations of facts. So why would this be different?

That would be 2025 logic, but at the time it was not "big textile", it was universal control over industrialization. As if big textile is any different than big oil, all the same owners today as in 1800, owning everything and protecting that claim to rights.

The point however is not that of protecting copyright, but that copyright protection was invented to usurp technology which was not truly invented. This is how controlling history controls the present, for if all roads lead back to "we invented this and own it" then all roads forwards must pay that toll. If the narrative were not true, then the premise could not hold.

You have to admit, this is a pretty unhinged conspiracy theory.

This has surfaced quite a bit recently with internet historians. We are to believe hundreds of seaworthy ships would be abandoned, that the captains and owners of ships decided to become miners.

How is it explained that some ships when buried were farther out from what we are to presume was the old shoreline? Would not the tide or some authority have moved them one way or another long before then?

The ships buried more inland are in places apparently not accessible to ships at the time, the shore did not go inland that far according to other depictions.

It appears the mint governors are paying attention to the internet scholarship, or why would they suddenly make this page with redundant yet skimpy details? As if to tell the platforms "this is the doctrine about the buried ships of San Francisco, update your community notes and fact checking."

Sure enough, google AI gave this very link immediately for several useless references when pushed for records.

The farce of treating a corporation as an individual precludes common sense legal procedure to investigate people who are responsible for criminal action taken by the company. Its obviously premeditated and in all ways an illicit act knowingly perpetrated by persons. The only discourse should be about upending this penthouse legalism.

The “farce” of treating a corporation as a legal individual is the reason you can have this case in the first place. Otherwise the authors would have had to discover and individually sue each specific individual in the company for each specific claim. They would have to find the specific individual that downloaded their specific book and sue that person. Then they would need to find the specific individual that digitized their specific book and sue that person. Then they would need to find the specific person that loaded that digital copy into an AI model and sue that person. And on and on for each alleged act of infringement.

Or we could recognize that’s silly when we’re talking about a group of people acting in concert and treat them as a single entity for the purpose of alleged crimes. Which is what we do when we treat a corporation as an individual for legal purposes.

They built large-masonry structures without laying down roads, or apparently sewers either. Some of the structures are sitting atop raised foundations, higher than the others, yet apparently without stairs or ramps.

Many of the roofs in the background appear to be masonry, compared to the modern tile roofing seen in the foreground, and the masonry roofs are very weathered. All of the masonry looks like it has a 200 year old patina impervious to power washing. Behind it all and only slightly taller than all of the structures, a hill that looks distinctly dug out, and which exposed dirt is the same coloras the patina on the old roofs.