Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | lobf's commentslogin

I spent a year of high school in the Basque Country, and it always stuck out to me that a common feature of the Basques, especially the beefy ones, was incredibly caveman-like.

I know this is not unique to this population, but I also always wondered if it correlated to the fact that it is one of the historic Neanderthal populations. I have a photo of a dude I used to play soccer with that looks like I put a Neanderthal model from the natural history museum in a jersey, and I have met very few people like that in the states. The Basque Country is a very small population.


My Dad wrote an article about this 25 years ago or so: https://aoi.com.au/LB/LB705/ (How the Neanderthals became the Basques). He would really get a kick out of people reading it (he's 90 now). His website goes back to 96' and it shows.

Greetings to your father from a European with O- blood, fair freckled skin, and a receded chin! I've always been fascinated with Neanderthals. Happy to see science slowly realising these were not some stupid brutes...

That is a gem of the old internet; concise, informative, well articulated, it's got it all. Tell your pa thanks for keeping it up for me!

It was a fun read!

Although one of the references goes to a now dead "reptilian agenda" website which might have been even more interesting:)


>His website goes back to 96' and it shows.

The thing loaded instantly. What a breath of fresh air in 2026. Hats off to Dad.


Sorry for your father but nothing in the article makes sense

Ah, reminds me of good old CGI websites.

Basque Country also has an interesting language which doesn't seem related to other European languages. Basque language (or Euskara).

Seems as though it could have been an enclave of neanderthals who eventually integrated with humans.


This is a much-discussed topic. All we know of the Basque language is that it is pre-Indo-European.

The last time I looked in to this, the consensus was that it was most likely a version of otherwise-extinct ancient Celtic.

Now that doesn’t mean that the Basques don’t have a potentially outsized Neanderthal genetic influence, but the odds of their language being so ancient as to pre-exist modern humans entirely is unlikely.


If it has any relation to Celtic languages, then it's Indo-European by definition.

We can tell how much neanderthal ancestry someone has, more or less. Basque people have no more than others. Despite their odd language, they are much like other Europeans genetically: a similar mix of European hunter gatherers, Anatolian farmers and the bronze age invaders which we believe brought the IE languages to Europe.


Oh! Sorry- I meant to refer to the hypothetical proto-Celtic language!

This is what vibe-commenting from memory gets me.


The proto-Celtic that is Indo-European? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Celtic_language

Proto-Celtic is also an Indo-European language...

I'm just an armchair wikipedia browser, but it's an interesting read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Basque_language

This article talks about the Basque language from before contact with the Romans, 5-1 centuries BCE. It also references a "pre-proto-basque" language, that would have been the one before the Celtic invasion of Iberia (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtiberians).

The rabbit hole kind of ends there, as not much linguistic artifacts or history remain from BC unfortunately. But one can imagine the Basque society would live in relative isolation for a long time before that.


The basque and sardinians seem to have the most of DNA from the neolithic european farmers. The sharp features in the rest of europe might come from the steppe people. That way this totally makes sense.

> If so, why do you think lobbying exists?

Would you like to be able to ask your representative to focus on a particular issue?


I'm also still on my M1 and I just don't see a need to upgrade. I've never owned a laptop this long without even considering getting a new one. It's still so fast, so cool, great screen, biometric unlocking... it's just incredible.

>Meanwhile on the intuitive MacOs to do this you only have to press Command+Option+Shift+4

It's command-shift-4, no option key involved.


Now got hold of a mac, and checked it:

Command+Shift+4 is area snipping, as you said, but pops up the viewer window

Command+Control+Shift+4 is snipping, but to clipboard. I mixed up the shortcuts, yet my fingers are getting used to it anyways, still I find it terrible default UX compared to other desktops.


afaik that way it pops up the viewer, and does not put it to the clipboard.

I don't understand this type of helplessness when you're already competent enough to use HN...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS


"Why did you ask this when you can google it?"

Because sometimes I learn unexpected things and get another perspective even when I could search for it myself.


what perspective could there possibly be on "what was BeOS?" Like, it was an operating system.

stick around...

>Look at Microsoft of old, the god of arrogance. Once the most dominant, powerful tech company in the world. They were king. Browser king. OS king. Everything king. Now they are barely noticed by large swaths of the market.

Have they ever been more valuable than now?


I think it’s more about how they are perceived. They’re making a lot of money somehow, but they have been losing desktop OS marketshare for at least 15 years, they completely missed mobile, Xbox seems to be failing, they completely gave up on the browser and just threw a skin on Chrome. They have O365 in the enterprise, sure, but that was a market they once owned… now they share it with Google Docs and a host of others. They had to shove Linux into Windows just to get developers to stick around. They had the PC gaming market on lockdown, but Valve is coming for them with all their Linux based efforts… we have PewDiePie as an Arch user now. How bad does Microsoft need to screw up to push someone all the way to Arch? All their consumer facing products seem to be trending down.

Everyone loves to talk about FAANG… there is no M, why not? One would think Microsoft would belong more in that collection than Netflix, yet here we are.

In terms of technology and looking forward, what is Microsoft doing really right? Even their investment in AI seems questionable and they pushed it into their products so hard that everyone hates it. They have GitHub and VS Code, but that was an acquisition and people are always nervous, because they don’t really trust Microsoft based on their track record. Azure is fairly popular, but AWS is still the benchmark everyone talks about. There is their enterprise management software… that helped take Styker completely down last week (maybe not totally Microsoft’s fault and more the admin, but that’s still some really bad press). Did I forget something big?


TBH, you could change a few terms and that text wouldn't look much different in the 90's. Microslop never gave a shit on end-users and what they think. Nobody ever "liked" Microslop. People were always complaining that Windows is shit, Office is shit, MS Servers are a joke, etc. Nobody at Microslop ever cared. They always cared only about having all the companies and governments in ransom, which was always their golden egg goose. The only other thing they care about, to make the first thing happen, are developers. They put a lot money into keeping people developing using their tech, and this actually works. Even on Linux it's hard to avoid Miroslop tech. (I've got just today a Pipewire update which pulled in some MS libs for ML; and there is for sure more as they have even code in the Kernel.) Microslop's EEE strategy is a long game, which is actually pretty hard to beat.


Your circles are really small and echo-chamber-y.

Office was considered a very solid product for many generations. Windows 95 was loved. So were Windows 2000, Windows XP with the SPs, Windows 7, Windows 10.

.NET was the envy of the Java world for many years.

Microsoft had many duds but they also had some great products.

You can't sell as many products as they did without also having some good products.


> Office was considered a very solid product for many generations.

When was that? My introduction to Excel was in the 1990s when a scientist asked about data corruption, and my response was "oh, yeah, Excel does that, you need to fiddle with these options and hope the options do not get turned off, seeing as companies may randomly screw over user preferences". The look in their eyes...they probably had done a whole bunch of data entry before they even noticed the corruption. Anyways, a few decades later those genomes got renamed, for some reason or another. Other customers came to me and pleaded, please do not install Word 6, it's bad, and I was like, well, be that as it may, but Microsoft has broken the file format, again, so if someone sends you a Word 6 document you will not be able to read it. They've got you over the barrel, perhaps consider not using their software? Unless you like being chained to that main-mast, of course, don't shame the kink! Later on a coworker said, try Visio, and I was like, this is sort of bad, and they were like, yeah, it was better before Microsoft bought it. So, when was Microsoft not producing kusogeware? Sometime during the semi-mythical 80s, perhaps?


I don't think everyone hates Microsoft's AI offerings, but rather a vocal group of online people.

Copilot is useful, particularly if it is the only thing enabled in your company.

Don't get me started on Azure though. Their VMs are insanely slow, yet still cost like hundreds per month.

I don't know who in their right mind thinks it is a good deal and that they should move all their services into Azure. Apparently a lot of senior management.


I think if, 10 years ago, you spun Microsoft into several different companies with everything playing out exactly as it has today in the product management side, the most direct consumer-facing sections like Windows Desktop and Xbox would have cratered and most analysts would say that they have bleak futures, while Azure and 365 would have grossly overperformed and would have been titans.

MS has been successful despite fucking up the monolithic position they held in desktop and gaming, because they managed to find a particularly valuable golden goose. It's just that in doing so they allowed the other golden geese they have to become quite sick.

If you took out cloud rev MS would have been much more motivated to not let the rest of the company's products turn in to the sorry state they're in.


If you had separated them, 365 would probably run on AWS and have better cross-browser support.


Most client PC are still running on Microslop Windows.

They are, as always, using Windows to sell all their other crap, especially Azure and 365. Things like their AD or office tools are tightly integrated into the cloud so you realistically can't even use the one without using the other.


At work, we needed a PC for a Linux-based Webkiosk the other day. The computer proposed by the colleague who actually orders stuff comes with a Windows license. I said we don't need that. A fruitless, lame effort was made to locate a substitute w/o a Windows license. I renewed my protest, but the feeling that the problem is me was already floating in the air. I gave up. We purchased a Windows license to run Linux. For the umpteenth time. It's like a Microsoft tax on PCs.


Those OEM licenses do seem quite cheap. I think it was Dell who gave an option for a while. To remove the Windows license and have Ubuntu instead only saved $10.

It was low enough where I think most buyers questioned if it would be worth it to have the license just incase.


I’ve heard the actual OEM cost is offset by the manufacturer getting paid for all the bloatware included.


Kiosk can probably be done with rpi.


From a CPU / GPU standpoint? Yes. From a "I need to constantly replace SD cards or netboot the weird firmware" standpoint? I'd rather not.


Yeah, this kind of crap is exactly what antitrust laws are supposed to prevent but governments don't care.


Do you feel they're? As user, not as investor.


I don't know what feelings have to do with an objective measure like valuation.


No, you received piles of them on your doorstep whether you liked it or not.


>We are committed to continuing to develop jemalloc development

From the Department of Redundancy Department.


But then what are you arguing? Geographic location determines IQ? (An inherently flawed measurement itself)


I'm not arguing anything other than the fact that Wikipedia is biased.

Though I will say it's beyond argument that geographic ancestry has an effect on IQ on a statistical group level (the reasons for this are what's debated), and that IQ is the best measurement of G that we have.


> I'm not arguing anything other than the fact that Wikipedia is biased.

It "is biased" to document human knowledge as accurately as possible. Is there something wrong with that?


Because it's not accurate? As I and others have pointed out?


I'm a bit confused then. You said that you're "not arguing anything other than the fact that Wikipedia is biased" but then also argue that Wikipedia is also inaccurate after someone points out that "so-and-so is biased" is a meaningless phrase. This reads like a shift of the goal posts and it discredits your arguments.

Regardless, one can see this claim of inaccuracy repeated in these comments with no provided example of such. The saying goes "what is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". It is therefore reasonable for a reader to conclude that the claim of inaccuracy can be dismissed as "bullshit", in the sense that the person making it cares not for its veracity.


Okay but you need to… actually present these arguments. Right now you’re stating your position and then affirming it as fact and expecting everyone to trust you.


I already gave you two large meta-analyses and more on the first point along with a and as far as the second goes in the field of psychology that's as established as 2+2=4 is in the math world. If you really want to research that yourself go ahead; I don't feel like I should need to waste my time.


>As you can see, Wikipedia is very dismissive to the point of effectively lying.

Did I miss where you presented evidence that wikipedia is wrong? You seem to be taking an assumption you carry (race is related to IQ) and assuming everyone believes it's true as well, thus wikipedia is lying.


There have been many, many studies that show that "race" is related to IQ. A true, unbiased article would show that as well as any well-founded criticisms of it.


Can you cite them then?


Roth, P. L., Bevier, C. A., Bobko, P., Switzer, F. S., & Tyler, P. (2001). Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 54(2), 297–330.

Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive ability. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(2), 235–294.

Neisser, U., et al. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. (APA Task Force report). American Psychologist, 51(2), 77–101.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: