In ancient times, such as during the period of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, full-grown cows were significantly smaller than modern cattle. Based on archaeological evidence (bones and remains), historians and archaeozoologists estimate the following sizes:
• Height: Approximately 100–120 cm (3.3–4 feet) at the shoulder.
• Weight: Between 200–400 kg (440–880 lbs), depending on the breed, sex, and regional conditions.
For comparison:
• Modern cattle like Holsteins (dairy cows) stand around 140–150 cm at the shoulder and weigh 700–900 kg.
• Some smaller modern breeds, like Dexter cattle, resemble ancient cattle in stature, with a height of 90–120 cm and weight of 300–450 kg.
Factors Influencing Smaller Size in Ancient Cattle
1. Nutritional Limitations: Grazing conditions were less controlled, and fodder quality was inconsistent.
2. Genetics: Ancient cattle were not selectively bred for size like modern cattle.
3. Purpose: Cattle were primarily used for labor (draught animals) and small-scale milk production, rather than for meat.
Ancient cattle were functional animals suited to the agricultural practices and available resources of their time, so their size reflected these limitations.
Please don't post LLM output as comments here. It is helpful for commenters to apply at least a modicum of effort to ensuring that the factual statements they make are correct rather than just authoritatively phrased bullshit.
Of course, plenty of us are capable of producing authoritatively phrased bullshit without any artificial aids! But we should try to minimize that phenomenon rather than maximizing it.
They’re very good at porting code between languages but going from a dynamically typed language with a large standard library to a static one with a large library ecosystem requires a bit more hand holding. It helps to specify the rust libraries you want to use (and their versions) and you’ll probably want to give a few rounds of feedback and error correction before the code is ready.
It's surprising the extent to which the tech community overfits towards classifying intelligent individuals as either exclusively technical or nontechnical. Recruiters are especially weak in this regard, e.g., if you've ever been effective at sales or people leadership, you are likely ineffective at swe or data science or vice versa. The most intelligent folks I've worked with are very diverse in their interests and abilities. You can see this in an elementary school GT classroom. Why does the tech community believe this is always an either/or proposition?
Yep. Pigeonholing by narrow thinking individuals who aren't accustomed to ambiguity or lateral thinking, especially when exhibit talents in more than just technical areas, a person becomes "nontechnical" to a nonzero proportion of technical people while remaining "too technical" for a large fraction of business people.
PS: Recruiters generally come from the same cloth as car sales and sports, so they're not usually going to be the sharpest pencils in the drawer.
>PS: Recruiters generally come from the same cloth as car sales and sports, so they're not usually going to be the sharpest pencils in the drawer.
Aren't you committing a similar mistake here, saying that recruiters can only recruit? At my former job one of the recruiters was an engineer for 20 years. He said he just wanted to do something different after all these years.
> The most intelligent folks I've worked with are very diverse in their interests and abilities.
> as either exclusively technical or nontechnical
This applies outside of tech or generally in any role e.g. if you're a backend engineer they assume you don't know frontend or if you're a marketing specialist you're not good at sales.
I never get it either. We're people not machines but most people have this assumption like we're a game character - you get a job / trait and that's it.
Because we live in an era of specialization. Look at a companies job page - even startups have silos. I don't think this is strange or unusual. Its hard to be good at everything. If I'm spending 8+ hours per day doing sales, where am I going to find the time to be good at other things? Most people are working for the weekend or to spend time with their families. Diving into far off subjects related to work isn't always exciting.
The Tropico games are a perfectly pleasant place to start. They get progressively easier and more casual.
The Anno games are my all around favorite. 1404 is my favorite, but honestly 1800 is probably the best.
Banished spawned an entire genre unto itself even as it hasn't aged gracefully. These survival sims have a lot more "bite" to them. Try Planetbase for a more streamlined experience. Timberborn if you like physics. Also have heard good things about Farthest Frontier.
And then there's Frostpunk which is an all-around amazing experience. The theming and mood rivals any first-person cinematic shooter.
Your people in Banished die. A lot. So unlike most other economic sims, building your city is not the primary goal, population survival is. And you have to balance population and resources pretty intimately.
Calling Banished a tarted up Settlers would be similar to calling Dark Souls a tarted up Zelda game.
I'm still an old blowhard and think Tropico 1 is still the best. It was so tough that you had to become a fascist every time. Which made it a harder game but also a much sharper commentary.
1.1B in NOLs. How does this not become a $200MM acquihire by UPS pre-bankruptcy? I’m asking because I would assume that the tax mitigation could be an asset and feel like I am missing something. I am not an accountant, but would love for one to explain why bankruptcy is the best choice.
Convoy effectively got into the factoring business and extended short term (30/60/90 days) loans to the trucking companies. Now, they don't hold these loans on their balance sheet but rather package them and sell them to lenders as asset-backed lending portfolio.
The thing with these is that typically the originator (in this case Convoy) will need to take the first tranche of losses. (This is where the $240M debt facility came in). As the freight market deteriorated, Convoy was effectively margin called by the lenders and could not come up with the money.
Any acquirer would then have to take up this debt. Even though Convoy may have a valuable asset, UPS is not in the business of managing a debt portfolio. Any acquirer would be dissuade by this baggage.
This…not to mention NOLs, contracts, MSAs, etc. At some level there is a market price for these “assets”. Maybe we need an eBay for near bankrupt startups? The bankers aren’t getting it done.
