linearrust

> Microsoft Edge is now the most used member of the Chrome family

Doubt it.

> and Microsoft Edge is moving towards implementing their own equivalent of uBlock built into the browser (thus, not Javascript, runs much faster).

Isn't Microsoft pushing ads onto the OS itself? If they are willing to show ads on the start menu, why would they block ads on Edge?

> Many details of this particular experiment made me greatly reduce my confidence and interest in social science.

There is a reason why many scientists diplomatically classify social "science" as a soft science. Less diplomatically minded scientists like Feynmann call it pseudoscience.

My personal motto: "Be the Change You Wish To See on HN".

> Is there any evidence of any tribes whatsoever existing over 20,000 years ago?

Hunter gatherer tribes.

> There was no tribal violence 47,000 years ago because there were no tribes!

Unless you are arguing semantics, yes there were. Tribes and tribal violence.

> but we don't find anything like signs of a struggle at an inhabited cave or post battle burial pit or stolen artifacts that would be loot, or attempts at creating defenses like fortifications or armor, or cave paintings depicting battles, or signs of a culture that valued warriors. T

We don't see that amongst primitive peoples who lived a basic subsistence living? How shocking! We don't see any of that for chimps either, but guess what? Chimps fight neighboring groups of chimps.

> It's further worth noting that in observations of modern hunter gatherer societies, interpersonal violence is common but group violence is basically non-existent.

This is true for pretty much all human and all social animals. Humans, like most animals, try avoid deadly fights. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Also, the 'modern' hunter gatherer societies that survived to this day probably were the less violent/more cowardly variety. The violent hunter gathers probably did a good job of killing themselves. Especially when europeans came around with modern weaponry.

> The idea of savages killing the men and stealing the women of neighboring tribes is a myth.

That it happened with frequency is a myth. But given the lack of diversity in the male Y chromosome compared to female mitochondrial, it isn't rocket science to assume it happened.

> For starters, Native American Y-chromosomes come from many haplogroups and are predominantly not european in origin, so your claim is just incorrect on the face.

No shit. That's my point. In the US, which haplogroup dominates today? The native haplogroup or the european?

> Second, we know for a fact that Homo Sapiens came to europe for several thousand years and then died out. The Neanderthals didn't just get a few licks in, they won overall.

If the neanderthals 'won', homo sapiens wouldn't have survived in europe for several thousand years.

> The Neanderthals didn't just get a few licks in, they won overall.

Any evidence for that? Of course not.

> Yet we have no evidence of any male neanderthal ever fathering a child with a sapien female.

Hmmmm... I wonder why?

> Finally, the europeans didn't murder all the men and rape all the women in the americas;

No shit. Why are you playing these manipulative games? Did I say every single native was raped and killed in half the globe?

> while Europe gained polical hegemony and did numerous terrible things, there were numerous alliances with various native polities

No shit.

> and the overwhelming majority of the Americas' depopulation was due to disease.

Nonsense. Native depopulation was primarily a result of war and habitat loss. But what does that have to do with the haplogroup assertion?

> Sapiens having difficulty producing fertile offspring with Neanderthals would make it more likely that Neanderthals die out, not keep them around.

No. You wrote: 'The evidence is much better explained by only male sapiens-female neanderthal couplings producing fertile offspring, which is a common thing for hybrids.' That's what I was responding to.

> And given that this interbreeding was happening rarely over the course of thousands of years as Neanderthals were going extinct, hybridizing as a last resort is a very likely explanation for the pairings.

Are you being intentionally dense? What does 'hybridizing as a last resort' even mean? The neanderthals were realizing they were going extinct so they decided to speed up the process by intentionally mixing with humans?

You wrote: "Again, there is no evidence to suggest that things were substantially different then." Humans today aren't different from humans 100000 years ago. Or 50000 year ago. Think about it.

> For anyone curious, there is absolutely no evidence of coordinated violence between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens [0]

'coordinated'.

> and it is believed that war developed during the Neolithic when well defined territories became more important.

What about simple tribal violence?

> If it was just "to the victor go the spoils" you'd expect a mix as sometimes one side would win and sometimes the other over the thousands of years.

Two examples refutes your assertion. In the US/Canada/Australia, the natives won a few and yet the male native lineage has been effectively wiped out. Almost all the interbreeding between the europeans and natives was between european males and native females. Mexico is another example. About 65% of the male Y chromosome is european while almost 100% of the female lineage is native. Mexico never experienced whole mass european immigration like the US, Canada or Australia. With only a tiny spanish population, over 400 years, the spanish male lineage has come to dominate mexico.

> The evidence is much better explained by only male sapiens-female neanderthal couplings producing fertile offspring, which is a common thing for hybrids.

Except that modern homo-sapiens completely displaced the neanderthals. If it was simply a matter of innocent hybridization, neanderthals would still exist as they breed better with each other than hybrids do. Not to mention most animals have an innate aversion to hybridization. It only tends to happen as a last resort in the wild.

"UNIX: A History and a Memoir" - Brian Kernighan

> It’s the difference between drilling vocabulary flashcards and actually reading, listening, or talking to someone.

You need the 'flashcards' before you can read, listen or talk. Go try reading a book where you don't know most of the words. Heck you need 'flashcards' before you needs 'flashcards for words'. You need to memorize the alphabet first. Try reading a text where you haven't learned the writing system.

> Young children do not use vocab flashcards to learn their L1.

Because they can't read.

> They aren’t being “drilled” to learn “mama.”

Obviously you aren't a parent. You think a child magically decides one day to say mama? Or do you think it's the mother constantly saying 'mama' to the child until the child 'remembers it' and repeats it?

> They have actual needs in an actual social context and attend to nuanced details of that context to make complex statistical inferences about the world, their perceptions, and their body.

What? Complex statistical inferences about the world?