4 ms·

Technically true but wrong. If your oldest Facebook post is from 2015, how likely is it that you've been using the internet before 2005?! Archeologists are very

Technically true but wrong. If your oldest Facebook post is from 2015, how likely is it that you've been using the internet before 2005?! Archeologists are very smart people in their own right, some are much smarter than we are. They do consider everything that we think they haven't. Let's give some benefit of the doubt to our fellow researchers.

neffy 5y ago
Some background on this, there is a long standing back to the late 20th century - and to those of us outside the field darkly funny - controversy within this particular scientific community on when the first humans arrived, which can be broadly googled by searches for "Clovis man controversy". Sure archeologists are very smart people, and like all other very smart people, can still be caught on the wrong side of history as new evidence piles up against existing theories.
User23 5y ago
> If your oldest Facebook post is from 2015, how likely is it that you've been using the internet before 2005?! Who knows. It could be that person has been using the Internet for a very long time and is thus a late adopter of Facebook due to preferring to do things the old way. It could also be a person who started using the Internet in 2015. GP's point that we really can't conclude anything beyond a lower bound isn't falsified by your example
SantalBlush 5y ago
>They do consider everything that we think they haven't. This can be said of almost any observation made about a particular field of research. Outsiders aren't familiar enough with the current state of research and they often assume experts haven't considered some rather obvious things. That's not to say that outsiders shouldn't participate in the discussion, but they should acknowledge that there is a good chance their ideas have already been considered.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
haroldp 5y ago
I first joined facebook in 2009, but have been on the internet since 1991. You might counter that facebook only started in 2004, and didn't get much traction until 2006. But I was invited before that and simply didn't care to join, preferring to occupy other parts of the `net. Likewise, Clovis artifacts all date from after the peak of the last ice age, when glaciers were melting, land routes were opening, and sea levels were rising to obliterate any coastal artifacts from any previous waves of migration. Clovis-first has been debunked for decades. This is just another - particularly solid - nail in that theory's coffin. It is worth asking why it has persisted so doggedly. I don't think it is because archeologists aren't very smart people.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  you were using what network protocol stack in 1991 ? Banyan "vines" or token-ring ?
  - Kostchei 5y ago
    direct dial to BBS, at least that was the "internet" for me at that stage. The disparate nodes of bulletin boards wasn't what I would call an internet. And it was very cliquish.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    I was running a full TCP/IP stack (ka9q[0]) across over single-mode fiber via a 10MB/Sec ethernet interface on my IBM PC/XT clone in 1990. I also used some higher-level stuff like telnet, FTP (sites mostly found via anonymous FTP lists), nntp, smtp, gopher, archie and veronica. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KA9Q https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KA9Q
    - mistrial9 5y ago
      sure, but I was a network engineer at the time and your TCP/IP was very, very niche.. you know very well that there was no "Internet" in 1990
SECProto 5y ago
> If your oldest Facebook post is from 2015, how likely is it that you've been using the internet before 2005?! My Facebook account dates back to 2015, but I have been using the internet since the mid 90s. (As far as I'm aware, there's no evidence of the previous account I had from 2006-2010ish) > Let's give some benefit of the doubt to our fellow researchers. Agree here
njacobs5074 5y ago
Facebook usage isn’t a good metric. My first post was in 2008 but had been using the internet since the early 1980s. There were these early internet tribes called researchers ;)

neffy 5y ago

Some background on this, there is a long standing back to the late 20th century - and to those of us outside the field darkly funny - controversy within this particular scientific community on when the first humans arrived, which can be broadly googled by searches for "Clovis man controversy". Sure archeologists are very smart people, and like all other very smart people, can still be caught on the wrong side of history as new evidence piles up against existing theories.

User23 5y ago

> If your oldest Facebook post is from 2015, how likely is it that you've been using the internet before 2005?! Who knows. It could be that person has been using the Internet for a very long time and is thus a late adopter of Facebook due to preferring to do things the old way. It could also be a person who started using the Internet in 2015. GP's point that we really can't conclude anything beyond a lower bound isn't falsified by your example

SantalBlush 5y ago

>They do consider everything that we think they haven't. This can be said of almost any observation made about a particular field of research. Outsiders aren't familiar enough with the current state of research and they often assume experts haven't considered some rather obvious things. That's not to say that outsiders shouldn't participate in the discussion, but they should acknowledge that there is a good chance their ideas have already been considered.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

haroldp 5y ago

I first joined facebook in 2009, but have been on the internet since 1991. You might counter that facebook only started in 2004, and didn't get much traction until 2006. But I was invited before that and simply didn't care to join, preferring to occupy other parts of the `net. Likewise, Clovis artifacts all date from after the peak of the last ice age, when glaciers were melting, land routes were opening, and sea levels were rising to obliterate any coastal artifacts from any previous waves of migration. Clovis-first has been debunked for decades. This is just another - particularly solid - nail in that theory's coffin. It is worth asking why it has persisted so doggedly. I don't think it is because archeologists aren't very smart people.

mistrial9 5y ago
you were using what network protocol stack in 1991 ? Banyan "vines" or token-ring ?
- Kostchei 5y ago
  direct dial to BBS, at least that was the "internet" for me at that stage. The disparate nodes of bulletin boards wasn't what I would call an internet. And it was very cliquish.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  I was running a full TCP/IP stack (ka9q[0]) across over single-mode fiber via a 10MB/Sec ethernet interface on my IBM PC/XT clone in 1990. I also used some higher-level stuff like telnet, FTP (sites mostly found via anonymous FTP lists), nntp, smtp, gopher, archie and veronica. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KA9Q https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KA9Q
  - mistrial9 5y ago
    sure, but I was a network engineer at the time and your TCP/IP was very, very niche.. you know very well that there was no "Internet" in 1990

SECProto 5y ago

> If your oldest Facebook post is from 2015, how likely is it that you've been using the internet before 2005?! My Facebook account dates back to 2015, but I have been using the internet since the mid 90s. (As far as I'm aware, there's no evidence of the previous account I had from 2006-2010ish) > Let's give some benefit of the doubt to our fellow researchers. Agree here

njacobs5074 5y ago

Facebook usage isn’t a good metric. My first post was in 2008 but had been using the internet since the early 1980s. There were these early internet tribes called researchers ;)