Teils13

English is vocabulary wise a neolatin language like french. More than 50% of english words are of latin origin, from roman latin to anglo-norman-french to modern french. English has also lost almost all noun declinations present in german and old english, with the exception being the genitive 's like dog's tail), and the plural, that takes an -s suffix (apple apples), which makes it similar to french and neolatin languages. So, there is something to it.

That is the true beauty of FOSS technology. Even if it fractures into regional forks, Linux code is open and free (as in freedom), so each fork can just copy-paste and compile the changes made in others if they advance the tech forward, no direct cooperation is actually needed (if everyone keeps publishing its works).

Yes, it is. It is very hard to escape having relations with capitalist conglomerates in most sectors, in some it is impossible. That is why having political control of the State is the only way of the working class to control the billionaires, if the economy side of society is not radically altered.

i think everything everywhere in the internet will be put to training AI at this point. Lemmy and other FOSS will be used too, but at least our data is public and accessible to everyone equally (including to some FOSS AI that i hope emerges), not a private property of someone.

Great information. I made a very general analysis, with the aim of covering the majority of territories and populations, not of exhausting every local specificity. Hinduism is not a uniform religion, as i said, but a very diverse one. But still, there are common traits that unify the vast majority of Indians that makes the situation very different (less diverse) compared to the historical European polytheism. The vast majority of Hindus believe that religious knowledge and rituals must be studied and performed by a specific social group, the brahmin caste. Or will you tell me that a random foreigner or a Dalit can enter any temple in north or south india, study sanskrit and rituals, and start preaching and performing rituals ? Not by a long shot. Hinduism has a diversity of holy texts, but the important aspect is that in each tradition and place there is a good degree of codification and formalization: at least one set of written (fixed) texts that people will adhere for doctrine and rituals, not for instance an exclusively oral tradition that changes radically in each house of worship, over time, and over the next village (old polytheism). This is stuff that only a developed urban civilization makes, that makes a religion have more 'capital' so to speak (to spread and be reproduced over time).

The muslim rulers also did not immediately convert everyone to islam in the conquests over persia to north africa, but due to the characteristics of traditional polytheism (along with the conquests and violence), Islam converted and spread over time, including to places christianity had not reached (like interior Egypt). This did not happen with indian religions because of the higher degree of formalisation and codification, that allowed it to at least keep up ideas and rituals with a more equal power degree in syncretisms.

Besides the other reasons mentioned here, i think there is a strong factor in the social and intellectual sphere. Christianity was a cohesive standardized institution with a written holy book (or set of texts, before the council where they canonized which books would go to the bible), and later became a part of enforced state policy. That mixture of standardization and officialdom allowed it to essentially accumulate 'capital' to such a degree it could (after absorbing lots of ideas and practices) overwhelm the local polytheistic societies and religions.

Local polytheistic religions were extremely varied, and each village tribe or city had its own gods, beliefs, etc. The mess of beliefs meant that the religions spread organically, not in an institution with quasi industrial ways (standardized beliefs, practices, texts, even rows of clergy trained in the same ways on churches and monasteries). They could be challenged and be overwhelmed by the bigger faith, in intellectual ways (evangelization) or by demographic superiority. Or just by immigration to other regions (which many people did, like the barbarians in late Rome or Imperial legions and soldiers since always), where multiple contradictory faiths coexisted, until a cohesive unified alternative popularized.

All that is inverted in India. Hinduism was (is) varied, but way less than paganism from ireland to iran, and it is a formalized institution with written holy texts supported by the state (or by castes, specially the Brahmins), very constant and stable over many generations. That inertia even allowed it to not become muslim majority (except in a few regions).

Other countries in Asia actually have Buddhism as the main religion or state religion (or main historical religion). Even if buddhism absorbs lots of pagan deities, ideas and praxis, the core institution is solid and formalized, and dominant. Japanese Shinto is very different from pre buddhist times. China had buddhism, and confucianism and taoism as also very standardized formalized state institutions (aka not a different religion per village). So asian polytheism is very reduced compared to european one.

Since i'm in south america, i will grab the popcorn and watch the gringos fighting with brown people for the nth time.

i think that one is not a screw up...

Neat story, it is also good. But the MCU has showed tons of people with checkered pasts still giving their best and overcoming it, and audiences accepting it. Starting with Iron Man, the ex merchant of death, and going Bruce Banne with Hulk (to the in-universe people), Black widow, Loki (twice), Ant-man (ex thief), and probably others i dont remeber.

I understand the comic universe had Sam Wilson as a much more relevant character, but the MCU was meant to be a separate story and try its own interpretations. The MCU eagle-man was just a secondary character that did not matter to the audiences, he could not be the successor.

It's Bucky who should inherit the shield, not Sam. Bucky had a deep connection with Steve, is widely popular and beloved with the audience, and could have had a solo film with a good story dealing with this alone (hell, the scene of Steve handling the shield to Bucky could have been a very deep moment by itself, after all they both experienced together). I know he had a dark past with Shield manipulating him, but he redeemed himself, and exactly because of these regrets and shaded past, a film showing him turning into a selfless heroe needing to prove to himself and others he can be a great captain america would be an apt transition for his character. Common people would love to see a more mature story with non black and white characters, that still progresses Steve's legacy.

The Zombie Era was heavily concentrated on The Waking Dead, which due to how many episodes and seasons it had sucked all the oxygen out of the genre, and people are still tired of zombies. People say the videogame era of adaptations is about to begin, but even then Borderlands was a failure.