OP, your take on it?

>>286
Not the OP but I did upload most of the files here.

I am thoroughly convinced Fomenko & Nosovsky are correct with there general thesis. That does not mean that I accept all their conclusions and ideas, though. But IMO the concept that history is literally junk before the 1600/1700 has been proved conclusively by them and plenty others (keep in mind that the subject is not new: Newton disagreed with the Egyptian chronology, and Morozov in the 1920s originated the 'New Chronology').

Careful if you're reading OP's books, several of their conclusions have been updated since the early 2000s. You'd have to read the latest editions in Russian to have access to their results. (chronologia.org)

Introducing Perspective— What if technology could help improve conversations online.pdf

>>190
Easily overcome. Recall how snowflake has become a bad word, in many places, including Youtube. Well, they can keep banning words, but as soon as they take them down we have a new word to put up. And specific grammar is not needed. We can just "coincidentally" drop either the word itself, or a hint to it, in the text, or in imagery.

Some already exist. You can imply someone is from San Francisco, or even just California. These are viewed as cherished things, so they're unlikely to ever ban them. Getting them to do so could result in lelzy times.

Google must be demolished but you have to also punish bad tech ideas.

LIKE PDFS FOR EXAMPLE

don't trust the files

>>197
They're only middle management. Just follow the money.