_Sports_ is not some basic fact, moral good in the world. It's just games. If you want to argue against something you need to find some other reason than it's inconvenient to professional sports.
I will almost always ignore the box/take-off. I pile stuff up by my office door that needs to go out to the garage. That spot always has tools piled up. A tote probably would help.
Also, there's design trick to make things look better. If you put 3 or 4 things onto a dish or textile or something, they magically convert from clutter to intentional. I don't know if a plastic sterlite works for this though.
It's a lot easier for prehistoric humans to migrate from Africa up to Sibera, and then across to North America, rather than sailing across the Atlantic to the Americas, and then migrating to Siberia. Plus I'm guessing all the paleontological evidence supports older settlements in Sibera, as that would be consistent with older settlements in the rest of Eurasia from waves of migrations coming out of Africa.
It's an interesting thought, but I think genetic analysis has shown that the populations at least moved west to east. Last time I read up on this, the TDLR was that genetic lineage + genetic diversity show a pretty clear "settlement of a few small groups of people" pattern.
Now, I suppose you could imagine a scenario where populations moved back and forth and the languages went westwards again after the settlement of the Americas.
Definitely the dates for settlement of this continent keep going further and further back than consensus admitted in the past. (Which is what First Nations have been telling us all along)
People did move back and forth across the bering strait well into historic times. It's not what this article is about though, which tries to look at shared morphology across geographic partitions to tease out the likely origins and timings involved. In this case they (very tentatively) identified coastal and inland origins that match up with other numbers and do not match up with beringian standstill hypotheses.
It's also worth emphasizing that Indigenous nations (first nations not being a sufficiently general term) don't have consistent views on this matter and don't usually identify specific dates or timelines.
You can identify specific positions advocated by indigenous individuals. For example, there are indigenous people who argue indigenous heritage in the Americas predates anatomically modern humans leaving Africa. You can also find indigenous people who agree with academically-accepted ideas about ethnogenesis. You can even find people who agree with both of these ideas simultaneously, similar to how you can find Christians who agree with consensus theories on human evolution and also identify the garden of Eden in the middle east somewhere. Rather than speaking about "first nations" as some sort of homogeneous mass, it's better to identify specific positions and talk about those instead.
This is a live hypothesis for the Yeniseian languages, the Siberian languages that are most likely to be related to North American languages. The Yeniseian languages are very unlike other nearby languages. So it’s possible they represent a back-migration from America into Siberia.
I specified an existing api in this, and I think it turned out pretty good. It exports openapi and json-schema from the same spec. Looking forward to having more linters for specs and stuff like that.
In this case, it really does look like that's how the author is trying to incorrectly frame hunter gatherer societies. No doubt they had fun, but work was life and death. They had no way to stockpile food, so just getting enough calories for a small group required frequent work where the stakes were whether you starved or not. A lot of the remains we've found of early man portray a complex, meaningful world nonetheless full of hardship (famine, malnutrition) and violence (e.g. bones broken by accident, or crushed/chipped by weapons). Modern hunter gatherer societies are not substantively different: they have populations limited by what their proximate environment can support, not because they want it that way but because that's all that can be practically sustained.
There's a lot wrong here. To start, modern foragers are very different than their pleistocene counterparts. They have much more advanced technology and live in significantly more marginal environments. They're also limited to what their environments support mostly by choice and modern society. They almost always have significant contact with sedentary agriculturalists, acting as guides and selling resources in trade.
Secondly, the whole point of being a nomadic forager is that you move. If whatever region you're in runs out of food, you leave to somewhere with more. The pastoral version of this is called transhumance. It's been made more difficult in the modern era, so we see much greater reliance on local productivity today.
There was constant foraging occurring, but modern foragers definitely don't believe themselves to be on the edge of starvation and they spend enough time socializing around camp with each other that they could easily spend foraging more food if they saw a need to.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but the comment I responded to doesn't talk at all about moving and talks quite a bit about how they lived a life in the edge of not having enough calories and regularly suffered from famine and malnutrition.
