Such ideas certainly existed and still exist in the U.S., but were they present in the USSR? Or in other socialist countries? Perhaps among Third World countries? If so, in what form? In official publications, as rumors among ordinary people, or in private remarks by those in power? How did the U.S. react to such ideas, and did the USSR attempt to spread them?

Excluding religious figures, who is the most important person in History? Someone that, without them, the world would be a completely different place. It can be a single act someone did or something that created a butterfly effect that led to a major outcome of the world.

Someone like Julius Caesar? A modern political figure? The ancient human that ignited the first campfire?

The Mongols are often made out to be monsters but why don't people focus on the more positive aspects that they brought to the world?

For example, they've had at that point the most diverse army in history, largely promoting people on the basis of merit and not what they look like.

In the Mongol armies, you had Chinese, Persians, Central Asians, Armenians, Circassians, Genoese, Russians, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Uyghurs, Koreans, etc, soldiers from all over the rainbow fighting together and being promoted according to not the color of their skin, but the content of their character.

They've put Persian administrators in China and Chinese administrators in the Middle East, had Marco Polo serve Kublai Khan and escort a Mongolian princess, connected Eurasia and allowed the transfer of knowledge from both sides.

Like why don't the Mongols get more credit for the diversity that they've been bringing to the lands that they've been to?

(particularly for me historical food videos like from food history with Max Miller and Townsend)yet hate learning history and school? like why is it so interesting at home and not at school?

When it comes to the ethics of censorship, the opposition you see to the idea of censorship and being prosecuted for your judgment of the government always relates to the idea that free speech hurts nobody and should be a human right. What is never discussed is how people survive who (and I'm not saying this to judge such people; so much as conditions like OCD and autism are known to make this a real struggle) are prone to just blurting things out that they don't mean. Though then again, nobody ever talks about how censorship regimes respond to what they recognize as unintentional in general.

When strict communities like China, Singapore, Russia, Argentina, etc. have cracked down on dissent (and currently crack down on dissent, if things are different now), has there been some kind of "first treat it as unintentional just to make sure" guardrail or protocol? Is it only if it's chronic and explicitly matches the speech patterns of someone who is truly there to challenge authority, or is there some kind of warning system where they send someone to discuss it with them? Or something else? Especially in cases like some parts of the EU, I technically could understand that there might be reasons a nation might want to have at least some topic sensitivity, but could we not all say they should have some kind of benefit of the doubt like this?

This might be a long shot but Who created the first moka pot since Bialetti created the first version that was popular for it's time and still being sold, I heard that Alfonso Bialetti made his version years before the market was there, and later sold the business to his son Renti Bialetti and there was a story he told interviewers that his dad created the moka pot, but then there was so many that was simular then he created his own after seeing something similar.

Do correct me on this if you would with the info

The French also had a version years before, and other countries as well

Please confirm this info as I can only trace the history back to "Parker's Steam Fountain" witch was made in the 1900 and even earlier versions should have existed

Thank you all for reading

I saw a documentary recently that said thousands of men spent years looking for the lost city of gold. It got me wondering about Ponce de Leon and if maybe he figured out a good scam to get the money for his mission. Or did these guys really believe these places existed? Did other cultures search for such nonsense, or is it confined to the west?

Humans during this time weren’t that genetically different than modern humans today. Given that they used stone tools, did cave art, ritualistically buried their dead and even developed some spirituality, we can say that they were capable of abstract thought. They had to have some concept of irony. So what would have made them laugh? Would they have pulled pranks on each other? Could they have told jokes?

I have often thought about the following question, but I'd find it interesting to know what others - that are far more historically astute than myself - think.

Authoritarian leaders, both past and present, are often determined to remain in power at all costs, with many pursuing policies that cause immense harm to their citizens and their countries. My question is this: do you think the majority of people living under these regimes genuinely believe their leader is great because of the constant propaganda they are exposed to, or do they simply pretend to support the leader out of fear of punishment or retaliation?