Posts by Kenneth Cruz67

Arthur Chase said:I haven’t witnessed such a blatant display of amateurism regarding the broadcast graphics in quite some time... 🙏

Well, this is just FP3, so it isn't qualifying or the actual race yet; I guess the broadcasts and graphics have always been a bit of a disaster during free practice sessions, but hopefully, things will look much better once the race actually starts.

Daniel Barnes53 said:

European Union stock markets have already bounced back, so maybe the sanctions against Russia won't actually wreck their economy as much as people thought.

There are huge investments coming into energy and defense, plus you've got those three million future workers who arrived in the European Union. I guess most of them probably won't even go back.
👍

But I guess I don't quite see how those two things are connected, because it isn't like the European Union itself is under sanctions, so why wouldn't the markets there be able to recover? 😁

Nathan Doyle4 said:Word is Lando Norris is thrilled with how they fixed those brake issues, but we haven't actually seen any proof yet.
I was optimistic until today, but that doesn't mean anything now. We'll see tomorrow...
Alpine looks strong, but again, we'll see.

Apparently, they spent today running through the race simulation with full fuel loads, and they're also testing out that new version of the brakes to make up for lost time, so the lap times aren't looking too bad at all, if you ask me.

I actually have a Logitech mechanical keyboard. I think I might just pop all the keycaps off and toss them into the dishwasher for about half an hour 👍

IceClimber said:Are we even living on the same planet or in the same dimension at this point?? 🤣🤣 🤣

I mean, look at Ukraine—it’s a former Soviet state with all those old Soviet weapon depots overflowing with Kalashnikovs, yet they still have to scramble for thousands of extra pieces of infantry gear because there just isn't enough to go around for everyone stepping up to serve.
It was only the third day of the war, and suddenly there were 18,000 armed people in Kyiv. Just in a single day! Meanwhile, out in the rest of the country, people are actually heading out to buy hunting rifles because military-grade stuff is so scarce.

So, I suppose the simple answer to your question is: he's a total jerk and then some.

Honestly, just ignore him. If I'm being totally blunt, I think he deserves a good reality check. Forget him and his views on Denmark. 🤣

Gregory Brown94 said:If I feel like I'm still being messed with, I might just take a page out of Hamilton's book and go into total self-isolation, honestly. Maybe you guys should try finding some people who actually want to kick off Grand Prix discussions and all that...

Honestly, maybe that’s for the best. You've pretty much flooded the thread about car reveals and testing sessions with a mountain of nonsense, vague theories, and those massive, oversized images of things that nobody really cares about. Then, when someone asks you an actual, concrete question, you suddenly act like you have no clue. I guess you could probably use a little break; it might do you some good.

stormybadger8 said:It’s either going to be a complete disaster because they’ve totally misread the entire football landscape, or maybe—just maybe—AM has pulled off something as legendary as Brawn finding that sweet spot in the diffuser! 😬

🤣

Jessica Gonzalez said:There isn't really a specific date or a particular pair of ancient ancestors that marks the start of Homo sapiens. Evolution is such a continuous process, so I guess what we call "species" is mostly just a human invention used for classification.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy A50 on Reddit

Well, I'm not so sure about that! From what I understand, a species is actually defined as a group of animals that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Amy Howard18 said:I'm specifically referring to the origin of hominid primates, acting as the evolutionary precursors to those specific Homo species you mentioned.

Well, yes, though I guess it’s worth noting that all the other great apes are still very much living up in the trees! 😁

Amy Howard18 said:I shouldn't say Aboriginals specifically, but rather their ancestors... I used the term a bit loosely in my previous comparison. It's not even fully settled yet that every single human being descends from one solitary African pair. There's actually evidence suggesting that certain groups of hominids might have evolved independently in various regions, which explains why we see so many different (and now extinct) subspecies of primates in the fossil record.

In my view, they are all descendants of Homo erectus, who also hails from Africa, though he and his offspring actually spread across the globe much earlier than Homo sapiens did. 🤔

I suppose if you're discussing the general origins of primates, there is still a bit of ambiguity regarding whether they originated in Africa or Asia, as there seem to be conflicting pieces of evidence out there.

Amy Howard18 said:Okay, so maybe using Native Americans in the context of "descending from trees" isn't the best way to frame this... let me try to put it this way instead. Based on various DNA analyses, there were populations in many other parts of the world—take Asia, for example—who developed independently from the original African ancestor, and this evolutionary path happened during almost the exact same timeframe. Later on, those lineages, which had evolved autonomously in Asia, eventually migrated to Australia, and it was from those groups that the aforementioned Native Americans descended.

Wait, where are you even getting that from?

While it’s true that Aborigines are Homo sapiens who migrated from Asia into Australia, I don't think they actually evolved independently within Asia; rather, they originally made their way into Asia from Africa.

Jessica Gonzalez said:It makes me wonder, what exactly defines a war? How many people actually need to be involved for us to call it that? If two clans of maybe 30 people fight over food or land, does that count as war? If so, those kinds of clashes might have been happening for millions of years. Even mammals today, which are quite closely related to humans, engage in similar behaviors.

Since humans have such advanced brains, our social dynamics are incredibly complex. I guess if something is that complicated, it wouldn't just be about positive connections; it probably evolved to handle negative ones too. It might have developed to help us survive within a wide spectrum of social interactions, including the more violent ones.

Back then, the population was likely so small that fighting over resources or territory just wasn't worth the effort, I suppose. We see plenty of cave paintings depicting hunting scenes, but there aren't any showing warfare, and researchers haven't found skeletal remains or debris showing weapon injuries from that era.

Real, large-scale warfare seems to only emerge within the last 10,000 years. There are several mass graves out there, and the general theory is that conflicts arose because one group would attack another to seize their women 🕺

Harold Doyle3 said:We were coasting along for a while, just playing around, and then suddenly everything went south. We hit a wall. Why?
Why on earth would anyone climb down from a tree if they were perfectly happy up there? It makes zero sense. Truly.
Maybe climate change has been playing favorites, targeting the shrubs and the weeds while leaving the trees alone. It’s all a bit skewed, isn't it? Honestly, let's just head down there and see who's still standing when the dust settles. Then we can talk.

We’re living in a high-speed environment, and honestly, that just makes evolutionary shifts happen even faster. It’s all moving at breakneck speed. War, constant conflict, any kind of chaos or misfortune—it’s all part of that volatile landscape. Everything is shifting constantly.

I have always felt that organized warfare is probably a relatively recent development in our history, and honestly, I don't think it truly existed before then. Back in the day, people likely lived in such tiny, scattered groups that a clash between two small tribes wouldn't even qualify as a "war" in the way we understand it today. It seems to me that war only became this massive, defining factor once humans actually started claiming and marking out specific territories.

Amy Howard18 said:Look, obviously the baby is trying to "swim," which is really just an attempt to stay afloat because when water gets in their throat, it's uncomfortable and they want to stop it. It’s more of a sensory reaction than some deep-seated survival instinct... I mean, clearly not every single baby makes it out of those situations, so they don't all "know" how to swim.
Actually, this exact baby example proves my point... some babies end up surviving specifically because they *don't* have an innate fear of water as a baseline instinct, and that's why they manage to pull through.

I have to say, I think that's a pretty poor example to use. Babies essentially spend their first nine months living in a fluid environment, so I guess they really do have plenty of time to pick things up. 😁

Amy Howard18 said:Of course not... none of those things are passed down through your genes. Instincts and drives are developed and cultivated throughout your life, which means you can learn to control them just as easily.

I mean, just think about it—if you were to place a newborn baby in water, they actually swim. How on earth did they learn to do that? They were just born, so there's no way they've learned, developed, or cultivated that skill yet. It makes me wonder if they inherited the ability to swim through their genes, or maybe it's just the basic physical preconditions that allow them to float and move at all?

Amanda Jackson5 said:From what I gather, genes basically just act as a blueprint for protein synthesis. But if you're asking whether those deep-seated instincts are passed down through the generations, then yeah, they absolutely are.

That’s actually why I was asking, because 😉

Quincy:

But if the question is whether instincts themselves are inherited, then I suppose the answer is a definite yes.

I guess I'm just wondering about the actual mechanisms behind that?

ruggedraven36 said:Nope. Instincts and raw drives were around long before we even knew what genetics was—that field didn't even kick off until the mid-1800s.

Totally. But does that mean instincts and drives are actually passed down through our genes? I guess my own bad luck might be 😁

Sandra Murphy33 said:😁

Perhaps Amy Bennett is suggesting that since ants build mounds and bees construct hives based on instinctual blueprints, there might be a parallel in humans where certain types of knowledge are hardwired into our DNA?
What does actual science have to say about this? Is there any validity to making such a direct comparison or literal translation of biological programming to cognitive knowledge?

Do you think instincts or primal urges are actually inherited genetically? 🤔

Sam Martinez9 said:I'm curious about your reasoning there. Could you elaborate on that thought process?

My point was that a baby born 100,000 years ago could be raised just like any child born today. Why? Because they are still *Homo sapiens*. Genetically speaking, they are identical to us. They possess all the biological predispositions required to integrate into our modern society—to use smartphones, computers, and so on. In the exact same way, a child born today possesses every genetic predisposition needed to thrive in the world of *Homo sapiens* from 100,000 years ago.

It works the same way whether you take a child born 4,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, or even just a century ago; we could raise them just like any modern infant born in an American hospital today.

The genetic blueprint remains the same. What a child ultimately becomes depends entirely on the environment in which they are raised.

I’m not so sure it would work quite like that, though. While you might be able to send a child back a couple thousand years without much trouble, I suspect the reverse wouldn't go so smoothly; a child brought from the ancient past into the modern US would likely succumb quite quickly to a disease we consider totally minor, simply because they might lack the specific genetic adaptations we've developed over time. 🤔

Usually, if someone is hunting for a BIOS password, it’s because they’re holding onto a stolen laptop 😁

I guess it used to be the one question on this entire subforum that everyone just avoided answering.