mindlesscrollyparrot

The things they have chosen as demonstrators have holes in the roof! They are not suitable as homes by any reasonable definition. I also think that light and security are necessary for a home. Certainly if you are trying to improve on an existing "subpar dwelling".

If they wanted to demonstrate how they can 3D print homes in rural Colombia, why didn't they print something that would be suitable to be a home in rural Colombia? They only had to load a different model into the printer, right?

Well, quite. They don't appear to have windows or doors either (doorways, yes, but not doors), and they have holes in the roof. Yet the article mentions "homes" about a million times.

It's almost like somebody who didn't have any knowledge of construction had the idea of 3D printing buildings. Probably in the shower.

I notice that they fill the walls with natural fibers by hand (see the photo) - so they must pause the printers at regular intervals and get a ladder to get up to the top parts. So even what we see isn't entirely 3D printed.

No reinforcement? What are the upper floors made of?

Runs debian unstable. Shuts down his machine every year or so.

The email says that you can do it. It doesn't say that you can do it without purchasing the upsell option.

The top of this comment thread is a person claiming that men do all the hunting in every primitive society, not just hunting based on long distance running.

You came into the thread to criticise a paper that showed that women hunt in 50 different societies around the world. Even your estimate of 50% is plenty enough examples to debunk the "all the hunting" claim.

Women are perfectly capable of drawing a bow that is suitable to hunt monkeys, rabbits, squirrels, small birds, etc. Accuracy is more important than power.

If your strategy for hunting mammoths involves your physical strength, you're gonna have a bad time.

You would need to be in luck. Let's assume that they studied all 200 uncontacted tribes. To bring the overall rate to 50%, you would need 119 out of the 200 to be exclusively males hunting - 60% of those societies. The researchers studied 63 societies and found that 20% of them were exclusively males hunting.

But what's the point anyway? The hypothesis is that males evolved to be bigger for hunting, even 50% of societies where women hunt is enough to make it implausible. In those societies, women are hunting in spite of their apparent size disadvantage.

I think you should ask yourself whether size is actually important for hunting. We don't wrestle our prey. Size doesn't matter if you're bringing down monkeys from the trees with a bow and arrow, and size doesn't matter if you're trying to bring down a mammoth.

I suspect not. To get to 50%, they would need to study an additional 37 societies, and every single one would have to have only males doing the hunting.

You explicitly mentioned the Sentinelese. Exactly how would you go about this infrequent contact and observation with them?

In any case, let's assume that hunting is exclusively performed by males in all of those peoples. How much would that change the statistic and the overall conclusion? 79% would be 72%

You think they should have surveyed the uncontacted people?

Millions? 7 billion more like.

I would say that the bbq is already on and the ceiling is going black, and then the alarm is installed.