There are ZIP codes that overlap a city and also an unincorporated area. Furthermore, there are zip codes that overlap different states. A data model that renders these unrepresentable may come back to bite you.
While it's true that CNN ran an article like that, the underlying claim has been formally rebutted by the West Virginia Prosecuting Attorneys Association, who clarified that:
> Women who experience miscarriage are not required to notify law enforcement and should not fear prosecution…recent public statements do not reflect the consensus of West Virginia prosecutors.
Many European scholars did consider Troy fictional. For example, Jacob Bryant's "A Dissertation concerning the War of Troy" (1796) explicitly argued that Troy never existed as a real city and that the Trojan War was purely mythological. He thought Homer's place names derived from Egyptian and Phoenician religious vocabulary, so the entire Trojan War narrative should be interpreted as imported solar allegory without any historical basis.
Bryant was a pseudo historian who came up with an elaborate alternate history. He doesn't represent the mainstream view anymore then flat earthera do today.
Edit: as I said, Troy was inhabited until around 1300 and left behind many artifacts like coins. While conspiracy theorists might doubt it occasionally, it was never a mainstream view that the person I was responding to presented it as. Saying that we used to doubt Troy so therefore maybe Atlantis is real is basically saying that if we reject one conspiracy theory we should accept a separate one.
Perhaps it's more likely at an American airport, but I've been asked to remove shoes in both the UK and Portugal when flying to other European countries.
> Only european powers had the urge for colonization, no other civilization in Americas, Africa or Asia really ever want to colonize, expand perhaps but not really colonize.
* Inca Empire: Relocated entire communities (the mitmaqkuna) into new provinces to cement imperial control—these were explicit colonies with an imposed administrative and cultural framework.
* Ancient Egypt: Occupied Nubia, built forts, stationed garrisons, and imposed Egyptian officials and religion on the local population.
* Mongol Empire: Installed governors across conquered regions stretching from Eastern Europe to East Asia, moved artisans and workers to bolster Mongol centers, and demanded tribute—hallmarks of a colonial system.
* Imperial China: Established commanderies in newly acquired territories (e.g., southern China), encouraged Han settlement, and superimposed its bureaucracy over local governance.
Historians do not consider mongol or Inca empire colonial . I would say mongols were probably polar opposite of colonizers they were extremely open and integrated extremely well into every region culture they occupied, there was no classical markers of colonization.
I specifically added Mediterranean later in my parent post to cover Egypt , Phoenician and Arab colonization which are considered as examples of pre modern era colonizing.
The hard separation of North Africa is sadly a modern view of the region that I have to do that explicitly, for most of history empires always had some land on both sides of the Mediterranean. This view is either promoted and exploited by far right in southern europe to justify many policies.
Your original claim was that "only European powers had the urge for colonization," but now you're citing Arab, Egyptian, and Phoenician examples. Do you see these as exceptions? If so, wouldn't that contradict your original claim? Or are you reconsidering your definition of colonialism—or using "European" in a broader sense (that somehow includes Arabs and Egyptians)?
Prior convictions are evidence in the broad sense (because they provide information that could update one's belief about a defendant's character or likelihood of committing a crime), but not legally admissible evidence (in many jurisdictions).
I did a year of computer science, but ended up going to App Academy with an ISA, because I couldn't really afford another couple of years. If ISAs are indentured servitude, but are still better than going to university, then what does that say about universities?
For real, if you applied the same level of scrutiny and the same kind of aggressive rhetoric to universities, the result would be a devastating critique. I think the same is true of other 'disruptive' companies that people love to hate (Uber, AirBnB, etc).
We uncritically accept the status quo, and at the same time compare all upstarts against some platonic ideal of what we imagine could exist.
reply