“Superpredator” is not a scientific term. It was used as an “overconsumer” in one publication, as far as I can find, but that meaning doesn’t fit the narrative of your copypasta.
And we definitely don’t maintain domestication of other predators through our predatory ability. On the contrary, domestication and cultivation of other species is what allows us to domesticate carnivores.
We are omnivorous vindictive social apes. Don’t take that description lightly.
We also have two real superpowers:
We’re the only animal on the planet that can scale stable social groups into millions while being individually complex. Some glitch of ours broke cranial limitations of the group size that other primates adhere to.
We are the only animal to have developed languages with complex grammars. While other animals can exhibit complex signaling systems, and possibly learn grammars we develop, we effortlessly develop and learn grammars that allow us to express novel thoughts without waiting for evolution. Hell, our children develop throwaway languages as a side-effect of playing with each other.
Everything else is a consequence.
PS: Blue-green algae would like a word about that “extinction event” claim.
PPS: Leave hydrogen unattended for long enough, and it will start arguing on the internet.
What irks me is people swearing by vinegar like it's better than anything
Ah, so vinegar was never the issue.
Stop listening to people that talk too confidently and live your life. Hell, recommend they use vinegar as drainage unblocking agent with the same gusto, just to have fun. It might even work for them.
They are left to the fascism, that they equate everyone who doesn’t agree with them, in a very special way - both are ultra right, but tankies are on the left of a spectrum orthogonal to the one the rest of us usually employ.
Unlike Marxism, that nowadays requires religious mindset to fit in, and magical thinking to believe in, Solidarity movement is a practical example of people achieving goals together.
In general, if you look for a socialist movement that was actively persecuted by communists and corporatists alike, you’ll find something interesting to study.
Oh, I’m not an academic, just an ADHD poster child. Historic weapons keep appearing on my radar for the past few years and I repeatedly find myself spending time on researching what I’ll never practice.
I try to find and share sources for that reason - they allow others to skip incorrect assumptions I made along the way.
By compete I mean to compete in utility and general use, not in a duel. Fencing sword is of no use when you get whacked at the back of your head. It’s also relatively useless on a battlefield, from which I presume it occupied mostly the same space the clubs did - streets and roads.
I won’t argue on weight distribution influence. Sharp object balanced near the handle doesn’t need much of a swing to render my arms unusable. A mace simply cannot do that, its utility lies elsewhere.
PS: I would love to see a skilled fight using a thrusting sword and a mace. Thrusting swords don’t have a cutting edge, which makes it possible to grab and grapple them aside. I imagine the moment your opponent grabs your sword and swings their club presents quite a pickle.
Note the years and descriptions on the lighter swords. They are more of an everyday tool for civilians at that point. A regular club competed with those, probably very successfully.
Maces tended to be lighter and shorter than equivalent swords.
Maces aren’t as good against unarmored opponents, because unarmored opponents bleed and get incapacitated from a few well placed cuts. Swords tend to balance their weight closer to the handle to offer precision to make those cuts.
Maces specialize in delivering nearly the entire energy behind a strike. They were balanced to the tip of the weapon for that reason. Which is great against cut resistant armor due to energy transfer. Note that this places maces utility well before invention of plate armor.
If it’s heavy and slow, it’s not a weapon. Slow weapons kill their weilders. Rare armor rendered the user so slow as to let you swing in a game-like “lumberjack dealing with a stubborn log” fashion. There are plenty demonstrations around that show how fast and deadly an armored swordsman is.
The statement about spears indoors is game logic. The variability in spears and swords designs is such that most swords and spears would be equally dogshit indoors, but those that wouldn’t would all work quite ok.
In a narrow, defensibly built passageway, thrusting attacks are nearly the only attacks available to combatants. A short spear then can offer a good deal of utility that sword wouldn’t, and vise versa. Short maces are nowhere near being useless there either.
It’s a perfect solution when all you need is a boogieman to “protect the nation” against. You get to show that you hurt the boogieman, and the wounds you inflict ensure the boogieman’s continuous survival.
Problem is, you’re mixing a number of different concepts into a nonsensical claim.
Exec as an “execute a string as a language instructions” is nothing new nor unique to PHP. Ruby on Rails, for example, uses it in a controlled manner to generate methods on ActiveRecord models.
Exec as an “replace this process with another process” is old news again. It’s not even language specific.
Popen/spawn family (which seems to be what you alluded to) is, once again, nothing new and is used everywhere.
Constructive feedback doesn’t need to offer a better solution. Almost everyone who uses that “definition” uses it to avoid criticism in the first place.
When I say “according to research A your policies led to segregation and discrimination” to a politician, I don’t need to provide a better solution. Moreover, them invoking a constructive criticism sentiment would be a clear deflection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event