Check the citations on the Wikipedia article. They go in circles back to one, single source of questionable credibility. Then check the logs, they clearly show that this was a highly controversial article that was eventually locked without any real resolution. The fact that this Wikipedia article is now being cited as fact shows the power of propaganda.

The notion that a black man, or even any non-Japanese man could rise to the rank of Samurai is beyond preposterous to anyone even vaguely acquainted with Japanese history. The country is well-known for having an almost ridiculously ethno-nationalist culture well into the 20th century, and even today anyone of non-Japanese heritage moving to Japan will forever be regarded as a foreigner by the native population.

Would it have been interesting if there had been a real black Samurai, and would it have made for a good story? Sure, but there absolutely, definitely wasn't, so why would one claim that one existed instead of just making up a story and be honest about it? It may have something to do with the current cultural climate, where there's exists this Western phenomenon where one bends over backwards to insert people of some ethnicities into places and periods where they don't historically belong. It's the kind of fixation on ethnicity and superficial features that one used to consider a sure sign of racism.

(No, Cleopatra wasn't black, and neither was Anne Boleyn. It wouldn't really matter if they were, it's just that they simply weren't, just like Martin Luther King wasn't Italian, and Shaka kaSenzangakhona wasn't Irish. And while we're at it, Snow White got her name from the paleness of her skin, and the Little Mermaid is redheaded character from a Danish fairytale.)

Really? Are there literally millions of rules and regulations that all have to be dealt with specifically by the program code?

Or could it be that the size of the codebase reflects decades of tinkering and changes being made by scores of different individuals, none of which could possibly know the entire codebase or its history?

Perhaps a total rewrite is in order. And perhaps it really should have been done many, many years ago, except there's never been the political will to do it.

One way to avoid people doing that would be to completely undermine any goodwill associated with the Wordle brand. By aggressively suing anyone and everyone who's created a vaguely similar game, for instance.

So, when the public pays for research, the public should be allowed to access it and benefit from it? What a preposterous idea!

(But really, good on you, Japan.)

Here's my suggestion to Google/Alphabet/YouTube for handling adblock users:

- make sure to pre-load lots of irrelevant content (AI-narrated video listicles or movie trailers will do), thereby sucking up bandwidth and wasting the user's time
- before the actual video, play a 45-second mix of white noise and "Daisy, Daisy" played on a badly tuned piano, at full volume
- pause the video every 15 seconds or so and when the user tries to resume, show an "experiencing interruptions?" pop-up

If this is implemented properly, the user experience will at least start to approach that of a non-adblock user, and perhaps those using adblockers will finally reconsider their choices and go to Rumble, Bitchute, or Odysee instead.

Oh, you wanted to force them to PAY you for the privilege of watching uninterrupted videos? Sorry, I've got nothing.

Certainly. Even though the environment it different, you'd expect to see some effect. Instead, you see none.

It would seem you haven't read even the headline.

If the drivers are the main issue here, or even an issue at all, how come these pedestrians aren't being hit by petrol cars, which presumably drive at the same speed, in the same environment? Do petrol fumes make drivers more attentive?

Here's a hypothesis that happens to fit the data: Urban environments are to a much greater degree than rural areas filled with terminally-online people who walk around with their face glued to their phones, oblivious to their surroundings. As they are used to cars making certain noises, they will wade into a busy street if they don't hear that familiar sound.

This also fits perfectly with the data from Japan, where authorities in some cities have gone so far as to put traffic lights in the actual pavement at pedestrian crossings, because people staring at their phones kept walking into the streets on a red light and getting hit by cars.

I would have preferred it if sites like Rumble and Bitchute made improvements to their UI design in order to attract more users, but I guess YouTube becoming more user-hostile could get the job done too.

Then why (according to the study) aren't people in rural areas affected at all, even though the cars drive significantly faster?

Might it be that the study is correct, that people aren't watching where they're going? Which is why they're recommending adding noise to EVs?

The linked study shows injuries of every kind to children. It says nothing whatsoever about traffic accidents.

And no, I didn't check any U.S. data, as I'm not a U.S. citizen or resident. In Europe, deaf people certainly aren't more prone to be hit by cars than the general population.

The study actually claims that pedestrians in urban areas are likely to walk right in front of electrical vehicles, getting themselves killed in the process. Because if the suggested solution to this issue (which is to equip EVs with noise makers) actually works, then it implies that it's pedestrians not paying attention that's the core issue, not the EVs or even their drivers.

For some strange reason, the inability to hear cars approaching has never caused massive casualties in the deaf community. How on earth do they do it?

Anyway, if you thought urban environments were to become less noisy due to the switch to EVs, think again, you'll be surrounded by aural clown cars at all times. Reminds me of the old law demanding that these scary, newfangled "automobiles" have a person walking in front of them with a red flag at daytime and a red lantern at night.

https://www.politifact.com/fac...

Clearly, you should contact Politifact and call them liars to their faces.

This would be a very smart move for a nation if they're expecting a shortage of components in the near future.

For instance as a result of an invasion of Taiwan.

Justice is paramount.

Once you feel the need to add an adjective, it's no longer justice. Otherwise, the adjective would be superfluous.

That could still be cultural. None of the Africans I know (immigrants to Europe) have a culture that even vaguely resembles that of African-Americans.

I just have to comment on this, because you're saying:

- rebellious slaves would disproportionally be the "smart " ones
- slavers would kill rebellious slaves
- as a result, only less "smart" slaves would procreate
- current-day African-Americans are the descendants of these less "smart" slaves
- therefore, we should expect modern blacks in the U.S. to be of lower intelligence than other "races"
- this explains the lower rates of academic success and affluence among American blacks

This is the genetic "black inferiority" argument, which is just the opposite side of the "white supremacy" coin.

But several of the assertions above are not correct; for one thing, rebelliousness does not correlate positively (or even at all) with intelligence. In fact, one could reasonably argue that the intelligent slave would be more likely to know how to keep his head down and play the system to the extent it was possible.

Another point is that slavers did not indiscriminately kill slaves that stepped out of line. Instead, they would typically administer horrible punishments that would both inflict pain and serve as a deterrence. This makes sense, as each slave represented a major investment for the slave owner.

Sure, in some instances a slave would be killed if the transgression was seen as sufficiently egregious; the typical case would be sexual assault (against a white woman), having an interracial relationship, or engaging in abolitionist advocacy.

This argument seems logical, but statistics show huge differences between the various immigrant groups. While some immigrant groups (like the Chinese and the Indians) are hugely successful in both the US and in Europe, others (like the Somali and Bangladeshi) are mostly unemployed and collecting benefits. Again, culture seems to play a huge role.

Which is why "white people" in general keep shooting one another, get constantly drunk, and thus fail to achieve success and occupy hardly any of the prestigous positions in society, right?

Sure, if we ignore crime statistics, are willfully blind to the fact that most gun violence is committed by urban blacks against other urban blacks using handguns, and pretend that contemporary, black rap music doesn't consistently glorify criminal behaviour and promiscuity, then my hypothesis does indeed lack any supporting evidence.