Relative population levels are indeed important to understand how colonisation could have happened, in addition to technological superiority.
An example involving France, and which had long lasting consequences: in 1830 France invaded and conquered Algeria. Looking at those with modern eyes one might think it should have been a massive war with an untenable outcome because France has a population of 68 million and Algeria has a population of 46 million... but in 1830 France had a population of about 33 million and had industrialised while Algeria had a population of only 3 million and still had an agrarian economy so the dynamic was completely different (although it still wasn't a walk in the park for the French).
The Industrial Revolution was why they were able to colonise the world. Being much, much more productive means you can afford a lot more bullets/cannon/artillery/small arms and you need less of your population as a share growing food. Europeans were better at war than anyone else because Europe was always at war somewhere. It was geographically fragmented enough that any one power becoming hegemonic never happened again after Rome. The difference wasn’t big enough to explain conquering most of the world though. They Sikhs came very close to defeating the British and Japan was almost certainly outproducing Europe in firearms by the end of the Sengoku Jidai.
The Industrial Revolution made European conquest possible.
Spain and Portugal did it first, long before Industrial revolution (which Spain had much much later and only halfway, and Portugal never had at all). They did it because they could: finishing reconquest of their territories from Arabs in the late XV century, they only saw foreign expansion as continuation of the same trend: Christendom acquires more land from the infidels, with divine assistance, they saw it as their natural life role and mission and same thing they kept doing for 700 years before, just on land.
Then, Netherlands, UK and later France acquired some territories - Netherlands for the purpose of trade (was before Industrial revolution and industry wasn't involved), UK because of religious issues - to push out people of "wrong" religions, like Puritans, as far away as possible, and France, well, because they saw it was going fashionable and they sort of felt compelled to do the same not properly realising why (resulting in the most ridiculous and useless empire imaginable).
Finally, Germany did it when they got so belatedly reunified after 1870 - they simply happened to grab some colonies from France because they won the Franco-Prussian war. Also never figured what to do with those.
In every case, only with the latter part of British colonialism, industry played some role (when colonies were used as source for industrial raw materials e.g. cotton from U.S. South), or market to sell them (India). Military capabilities brought forward by industrialisation, never had a role properly.
> Netherlands for the purpose of trade (was before Industrial revolution and industry wasn't involved),
That's arguable. I mean they didn't have the steam engine, but besides that the Dutch economically was relatively industrialized according by most other metrics (high urbanization, high amount of energy usage (wind, peat, water), relatively very high labor productivity etc.)
Trade allowed the Netherlands to acquire huge amounts of capital but unlike some other countries (e.g. Spain) they didn't waste it and instead invested into dramatically increasing the productivity of their economy .
The UK did not acquire territories because of religious issues and to push out Puritans. It was economics. Your explanation in general is a massive oversimplification - most of the time, governments weren't intentionally driving colonization. England favored economic growth with corporations running the show.
Jamestown, for example, was not founded by the government of England but instead by an investment company in search of riches. The Puritans as well; the government didn't put them on a boat, they bought a charter from the Virginia Company.
For quite a while the North American colonies weren't really that valuable economically compared to the ones in the Caribbean or Asia.
British colonies were somehow able to attract massive amounts of settlers and eventually became self sustainable. The Dutch, French and others could never achieve that and mainly relied on the fur trade with the Native populations.
I wouldn't say "massive" amounts of settlers, certainly not for the first hundred years or so. The huge migration was in the 18th century.
For example, Virginia, the most populous colony at the time, had about 58k people in 1700 but over 530,000 by 1780.
The colonies as a whole grew by about 245,000 people in the 17th century and 2,550,000 in the subsequent 80 years, before the American Revolution. I should mention, however, that these numbers include the number of enslaved persons, about 575,000 people in 1780. That's a growth from around 6% of the total population in 1700 to over 1/5 of the total population of the colonies and around 40% of the population of Virginia in 1780.
It's not that much of a mystery how the British colonies became financially successful; most of it was due to location and slavery. It's the same reason that, while the French and Dutch were not as much of an economic success in their North American colonial holdings, they (and the Brits) were a huge financial success in the Caribbean. By importing people enslaved in Africa to work sugar plantations and not worrying about the death rates, the investors and colonial powers were able to make a substantial profit.
edit - obviously there are a lot more layers to that.
Right: the government of England had a problem with religious sects and needed to push them out somewhere. That created demand on the part of Puritans who didn't want to get hanged at home, to emigrate, and King happily approved it because it meant good riddance.
Well, with those territories not having defensible or Christian state, from standpoint of XVII century, those were exactly the same: those lands were "empty" and those settlers, by settling there as royal subjects, claimed it for the Crown.
If they settled in some country rules of which they'd find obliged to obey - either because it was Christian, or because it was too strong to ignore with their forces - they couldn't claim land and instead, will become immigrants, then of course it's not colonisation.
The lands were claimed for the Crown years earlier in the first grant to the Virginia Company, which gave them lands ranging 100 miles inland from the coast and from the 34th to 45th parallels. (http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1600-1650/the-first-virg...) It's why they made the Popham Colony. The first wave of Puritans to migrate weren't even living in England at the time, they had already moved to the Netherlands.
Why is the French Empire the most ridiculous of them all? France was the most powerful and most feared European kingdom at the time. It was natural they start colonizing to exert influence against rivals abroad, when they had a coast and a navy, lest they end up like the truest useless empire (Austria and the HRE).
Because they failed to either enrich themselves through robbing the colonies, or develop the colonies, or bring the culture there (ok people in Cote d'Ivoire indeed, eat baguettes and quiches but it looks more like a sad joke than like France).
Compare to the British colonies and dominions: brought British culture and legal system (even to territories where local population always dominated), developed them economically, and yes, robbed them too, making good profit.
French system, for comparison, was an utter failure. Only benefit it provided was a good network of anchorages and coal bunkers for the French Navy.
That line of thinking only goes so far, industry also allows one to simply buy resources from foreign locations without the bother of conquest and administration. It’s really a combination of many factors including Europe’s relatively high population that made it both viable and desirable.
And tbh the European demographics expansion between 1500-1800, before industrialization properly spread out from Britain [0], was the Columbian Exchange.
Potatoes unlocked lots of land in the northern part. And the other unsung botany, too.
And the ability to send surplus men (and women) to an empty (because of disease) continent instead of having them warring against each other like pre-Columbian Europe and East Asia (looking at Sengoku) is also decisive...
[0] Remember one reason why Britain was able to fight Napoleon even when the entire continent was conquered was because of industries.
And control of the global trade networks. The same reason why the seemingly insignificant Netherlands (population and area wise) were able to maintain its position as a global superpower throughout most of the 17th century before being replaced by Britain. Of course it's a bit baffling that that happened after England and Holland ceased being rivals because a Dutch army invaded Britain, overthrew it's government and put their Stadholder on the English Throne..
Britain was mostly able to fight because the French fleet was sunk which shielded them from a massive invasion and Russia weakened France. By themselves they wouldn’t have done much.
And, well, most of the Coalitions were almost exclusively funded by generous British subsidies. To Austria, Prussia, Sweden, Russia, and a couple dozen of minor powers. Industry made Britain able to afford that.
"In terms of soldiers the French numerical advantage was offset by British subsidies that paid for a large proportion of the Austrian and Russian soldiers, peaking at about 450,000 in 1813."
The timing is wrong though. Industrial Revolution started in 1760. By that time the British had already laid the foundation for their rule of India, and the other powers also were well on their way to colonization.
In fact, looking at the timing, one could almost make the argument that the Industrial Revolution was the effect of colonization and exploitation of the rest of the world and not the cause.
The Watt steam engine is roughly contemporaneous with the Battle of Plassey and the British ascendency over Bengal, but the Watt steam engine is not the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. It built upon cultural and technical innovations from 50 years prior. The British had been engaged in a radical period of industrialization since the start of the 16th century.
That's arguable, but sure. Even there it was more in the late 16th century, which makes sense given Spanish priorities prior to independence. Britain absolutely copied the hell out of it.
I don't know about that. A lot of people forget that the biggest war the British fought in the late 1770s and early 1780s was the first Anglo-Maratha war (which they lost) and their dominance wasn't really established until after the second and third Anglo-Maratha wars in the early 19th century.
This is the traditional view, but opinions have shifted recently. European colonization was driven mostly by the population boom accompanying the industrial revolution. The military advantage was real in the late 18th and 19th centuries, but that was brief compared to the timeline of the traditional explanation of Europe always being at war.
For example Ming China was the first gunpowder empire and was militarily competitive with if not superior to the European countries of the time. Qing China was caught resting on its laurels after it had accomplished the millennia-long Chinese goal of subduing all neighboring regions. In the case of China's defeat by European powers it was a combination of European ascendency and Chinese military stagnation at the time.
Well European powers were already well ahead in their 'quest' of subjugating the entire world in the 1500s and 1600s. Obviously they couldn't directly challenge China and some other Asian states at the time yet but the trend was pretty clear.
However Europe still lagged both economically and population wise behind Asia at the time and industrialization hadn't really started.
Strong disagree with this. Merely increasing population doesn't mandate colonialist response. [It could have ended in internal revolts of hungry dispossesed mouths.] There was a socio-economic pathway open to these new people not available to their forefathers: participation in the capitalist economy and possibility for upward social mobility.
It was capitalism and accompanying political restructuring (from feudalism) that released and focused that demographic, intellectual, and technical 'potential'. Would a tiny "aristocratic" minority be able to scale up empire without making emerging (secular, technical including finance) social classes partners in the fruits of empire?
(Convince yourself: Consider demographic and socio-economic trends in China 1990 to 2010. Was it population growth or the socio-political change that catapulted its economic power?)
I wouldn't say so. Some of the colonizers were quite small: the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Belgians, &c.
But it's important to state that it wasn't Europeans, but western Europeans who colonized. Here in Romania we never colonized anyone but were colonized by western Europeans and Asians: Austrians, Russians, Turks, &c.
I'd love property-based testing in big data cluster computing applications done in Databricks/Spark. However, (Py)Spark is very high-latency, even in local mode, so Hypothesis would have to generate a list (DataFrame) of thousands of test cases to be evaluated in parallel. That is where I got stuck. Has anybody ever done this successfully?
There are lots of dials that can be tweaked; e.g. timeouts, number of tests, etc.
For example, I've used Hypothesis to test some browser-automation, which uses the ChromeController package to launch a Chrom(ium) browser to take screenshots and print-to-PDF. The tests do things like:
- Generate random HTML
- Write it to a temp file
- Launch Chromium, set its window width+height, and navigate to that file:// address
- Take a PNG screenshot
- Use a PNG library to assert we've got a valid PNG, of the given width + height
There are similar tests for print-to-PDF (checking that it's a valid PDF with at least one page), etc.
The only fiddling I had to do was put `deadline=1000` in the `@settings` decorators. This prevents Hypothesis giving up on a test run too early; it automatically runs the tests fewer times, so it stays within a reasonable time frame.
These sorts of tests are good for sanity-checking that we're plugging things together in the right way; but I wouldn't rely on them checking enough times to e.g. catch arithmetic edge-cases, etc.
I wish there were something that opens the windows automatically at the right time to keep the heat* and humidity out. I'm sure other people will have had that idea, too. But I haven't come across easy-to-use hardware controls. That's not even talking about the full optimal control problem, i.e. weather forecast, the heat capacity and heat permeability of the walls, and any cigarette smoke coming in.
*Air conditioning is hard to get permission for as a renter in Germany.
> I wish there were something that opens the windows automatically at the right time to keep the heat* and humidity out.
The latter part of your problem is a solved one. Weather forecasts and local conditions (from your own indoor/outdoor sensors) for the weather, heat capacity and permeability could be hardcoded or via helpers, cigarette smoke via air quality sensors. All of these can be integrated with Home Assistant.
All that is left is something to physically open/close the window, which should also be a solved problem.
I found you while researching how to verify a mask is good as an end-user, because I cannot get a good seal out of any of the six types of FFP2-masks I have tried. On the one hand, I've always been on the lookout for something similar. On the other hand, there are a few showstoppers that keep me from buying.
* Looks. Even if I can decide to look like the Reddit alien in a motorcycle helmet while everybody else is wearing an FFP2 mask, there is no way I can persuade my wife or kids. Would it be possible to make the exhaust pipe a bit more inconspicuous? E.g. inhale from the left cheek, exhale to the right cheek?
* Filtration efficiency and trust. There is a reason the FFP2/FFP3 standards test with 0.3um sized particles - those are the most difficult to filter out. Your marketing copy talks about 0.4um and 0.1um, and the headline screems about 3um large virus particles, which are even less relevant. Even though the 0.4um numbers look close to FFP3, any official certification is missing. Is it safe to say that your product does not meet the FFP2 standards?
Additionally, I'd love a mask that does not saturate out within minutes if I am panting (from chasing after kids).
* Facial expressions. If you could make the mouth covering transparent, it would show my mimics in a conversation. That could be a killer feature, especially for socializing (or salesy jobs).
* Glasses and field of vision.
* Sticker price shock. Most FFP2/KN95 masks are counterfeit and none have a good seal, so I might as well grab the ones for $0.17 a piece from aliexpress. But, I am already spending much more on other Covid safety measures.
EDIT: Can you give me an accessible way to experience the mask's safety? So far, the best criterion I have come up with is if I can smell the smoke when I'm standing next to a smoker. In defense of that metric: There are absolutely no credible alternatives proposed on the internet. Mask fit used to be tested officially with noxious smoke. Cigarette smoke particles are pretty close in size to the virus-laden droplets. But in practise, an FFP2 mask passes this test only if I tape over all of its edges with a band-aid, and my skin won't tolerate that day-in day-out.
Ultimately, most of this comes down to your risk tolerance - how much is quality covid protection worth to you? I agree that looks are more likely to be the barrier there than $85, which as you mentioned is high relative to cheap disposable masks but low relative to how bad covid is. Regarding looking weird, I can only point to our product reviews where users consistently find that they are, to their surprise, not treated like aliens: https://narwallmask.com/products/narwall-mask#reviews
Re; filtration, we link to a test data sheet showing that the filter material is tested by Nelson Labs, a major lab testing company. I'm not sure where you get the 0.4um or 1um numbers from - the particle size we test to is 0.1um, and the viruses used in Nelson Labs' VFE testing are much smaller than that (google "Nelson Labs VFE").
Back in the 70s or so, they thought 0.3um was the most difficult size particle to filter, which is why the standards test for that; since then, studies have shown that 0.1um is actually slightly more difficult, but everything in that range is near the bottom of the parabolas and tends to be very close.
I can try to link to some papers on this later but I'm on mobile right now.
Our size guide is next to the size selector on our website; I'll try to make that easier to find.
Thanks for your reply. I've elaborated some in the grandparent. I am willing to pay for quality once it is rigorously demonstrated.
The safety issue comes down to this paragraph in your FAQ:
What is the filter material and how is it tested? Our filters are made in the USA with material tested to >99.997% VFE (viral filtration efficiency) by Nelson Labs. Another metric is PFE (particle filtration efficiency). The N95 standard for 0.3-micron PFE is >95.00%, while Narwall's filter material is tested to >99.50% 0.1-micron PFE. You can learn more about these particle sizes here.
The way I read it, you test for 3um (VFE is that according to https://fixthemask.medium.com/the-standards-for-face-masks-i...) and 0.1um, but not 0.3um. I'd be happy if you could point me to papers that those two sizes cover 0.3um and saturation issues.
Is there some kind of independent verification of efficacy and safety of the whole device, not just the mask?
As a minor point - the sticker price is closer to $820 (4 persons times mask and 6 months of filters and international shipping).
I am legally required to wear a medical-grade mask (FFP2 or surgical). Do you have an official-looking document to show to the authorities?
> SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped virus ≈0.1 μm in diameter
Making the 0.1μm measure more relevant.
Ultimately, it's up to your judgement whether to determine these filters are likely to be at least as useful as alternatives, bearing in mind that a poor seal/fit (which you may get with other masks) reduces effective filtration by quite a bit.
Apart from the aforementioned testing of our filter material, and the third-party fit tests (https://narwallmask.com/#h:testing), the CDC's National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, under NIOSH, is currently assessing the mask but has yet to release results.
Another option you could pursue is a half-face elastomeric respirator with a surgical mask securely taped over the exhale valve, coupled with tight-fitting goggles. It may be less convenient and may or may not achieve the aesthetic properties you seek, but those masks have been around long enough to be evaluated by government bodies for their ability to protect the wearer (though, not the public).
This makes it easy to tell that you have a complete seal.
The fact that your existing masks do not pass without tape indicates that you do not have a seal, and the filtration numbers you're seeing are reduced by many percentage points (eg; from 95% to 90% or lower) as air enters the mask unfiltered through the sides.
I have not performed the cigarette test myself, and haven't seen information indicating it is a reliable covid test, but you are certainly welcome to try it with a Narwall! I'd be keen for your results, and could provide a discount in exchange for the information.
For me, the Narwall's main value proposition beyond a standard FFP2 respirator is a super tight seal. Smoke is probably the best proxy I can test that with.
Would you be open to a full refund if I order it and can still smell cigarette smoke?
Would a negative pressure test suffice? (See our website). Smoke may have a false negative, as odorants are many times smaller than the target challenge particles.
Unfortunately not. There is a huge safety difference between a negative pressure test ("fit check" below) and a test with an actual aerosol ("qualitative fit test"). All of the FFP2 respirators I have checked pass one and fail the other. I am hoping the Narwallmask can fill this gap.
Due to the associated time and costs, some health officials propose the elimination of fit testing and advocate that a fit check is sufficient in determining respirator fit [39]. The NIOSH conducted a study that demonstrated protection of N95/FFP2 masks improved from 67% without fit testing to 96% with fit testing [40]. Subsequently, NIOSH determined fit check alone to be insufficient and fit testing should be mandatory when selecting filtering facepiece respirators or elastomer half mask respirators.
Three studies that included 1111 Asians assessed the ability of fit check to detect leak determined by a quantitative fit test [36, 41, 42]. Average (range) sensitivity and specificity of the fit check to correctly detect leak were 26 (14–40)% and 79 (58–92)%, respectively, and consequent average (range) fit test pass rate following ‘successful’ fit check was 56 (34–73)%. Another study found the protection factor of filtering facepiece respirators increased from 3.3 to 20.5 when comparing the results of the entire test panel with those who had passed the fit test [32]. However, non‐fitted filtering facepiece respirators are still likely to provide greater protection than surgical masks, with a measured protection factor of 1.2 (Table 1) [32].
In summary, while fit check remains recommended before each use of any respirator to ensure fit on a day‐to‐day basis (Grade 1C evidence), we recommend not to use fit check as a substitute for fit testing to identify the size and shape of respirator that fits best (Grade 1B evidence).
For what it's worth, I think we provide tools to perform more accurate fit checks than are possible with other masks, but of course I don't have data to back that up, and this is a situation that warrants caution.
The smoke check sounds like a great idea too, I just can't confirm that it will produce a true result for Narwall since we haven't specifically evaluated that methodology.
Even if we can't accept a full return because the mask has been tried on, we always offer partial refunds at least when a customer isn't satisfied for any reason, if that's any help.
The ability to hire good junior engineers is one of the things that set a good senior engineer apart. So you might want to practise being an interviewer, even if you don't go into recruiting.
Yeah... this. Not all situations at home are equal. Wish folks at work would understand that.
... school aged kids outnumber my partner and I. IEP and 504 support has yet to prove effective remote. But it’s the effort to mitigate the developmental regression that keeps me up at night. Cognitive behavioral therapy, etc. isn’t cheap either.
... working from the 1950’s garage with ambient temps just shy of 100F last week (no space to work inside).
... partner is now out of work too, but I guess it’s a good thing for ensure all the kids attend “their meetings”?
It can always get worse, and likely will. I dunno, just saying—-yeah, i agree. COVID stress isn’t even on the radar.
