https://i.imgur.com/3WBm3nh.png

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833421&forum_id=2Reputation#49661932)

https://i.imgur.com/7UVbm58.png

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833421&forum_id=2Reputation#49661945)

https://imgur.com/a/TWkAP09

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833421&forum_id=2Reputation#49661954)

----------------------------------

Main Takehome Points about the Khazar Khaganate:

The Khazar Khaganate was a fascinating and important, yet often overlooked, medieval state. Here are the key takeaways:

A Unique Multi-Ethnic Empire: The Khazars weren't ethnically homogenous. They were a Turkic-speaking people who built an empire by incorporating a diverse range of groups – Turkic tribes, Slavic tribes, Iranian peoples, and others. This meant they were skilled at integrating and managing a multi-cultural population.

Strategic Location & Trade Hub: Located north of the Caucasus Mountains and west of the Volga River, the Khazars controlled vital trade routes connecting Western Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. They benefitted immensely from this position, levying taxes on trade – especially the lucrative Silk Road traffic. This wealth fueled their power.

Conversion to Judaism (a major anomaly): This is the most famous aspect! In the 8th-9th centuries, the Khazar elite, including the ruling Khagan (king), converted to Judaism. This was an incredibly unusual move for the time and region, setting them apart from their predominantly Christian and Muslim neighbors. The precise reasons are debated (political alliance, religious freedom, genuine belief), but it profoundly shaped their identity.

Buffer State & Conflicts: The Khazars acted as a crucial buffer between the expanding Arab Caliphate and Eastern Europe. They fought numerous wars with the Arabs, preventing them from gaining a foothold north of the Caucasus. They also frequently clashed with the Byzantine Empire, the Bulgars, and various Slavic and Turkic groups.

Advanced Society & Urban Centers: Archeological evidence reveals Khazar society wasn’t just nomadic. They had established settlements and urban centers like Atil, a thriving city on the Volga. These settlements demonstrated sophisticated infrastructure and trade networks.

Mysterious Decline & Fall: The Khazar Khaganate collapsed in the late 10th/early 11th centuries under pressure from a rising Rus' (proto-Russian) state under Sviatoslav I of Kyiv. The reasons for their rapid downfall are still debated, but likely involved a combination of internal issues, external aggression, and a weakening of their military strength.

Impact on Eastern European History: While the Khazars are often absent from many historical narratives, their existence significantly impacted the development of Eastern Europe. They helped to shape the political landscape, influenced the spread of ideas and religions, and left a lasting cultural legacy.

In essence, the Khazar Khaganate represents a unique case of a powerful, multi-ethnic, Jewish-led empire that briefly flourished in a volatile region and played a key role in shaping medieval Europe and Asia.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833421&forum_id=2Reputation#49661964)

- 1 GPU with 24gb of VRAM. 16gb absolutely WILL NOT CUT IT

- the following docker containers:

Postgresql

redis

gotenberg

Apache-Tika-Server

ollama

paperless-ngx

All of those have to be configured and running before you do SHIT. You also need to create custom directories and set permissions manually. but it's worth it

You can use any LLM you want, but Gemma3:27b is good because it does vision and can look at pics/do OCR. 100% local, no internet connection needed

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833421&forum_id=2Reputation#49661990)

This is why they are depopping

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833421&forum_id=2Reputation#49662012)

"Does the book tell us anything about the land we now call Ukraine?"

-----------------------

Yes, the book touches on the territory we now know as Ukraine, though indirectly and under different historical names. Here's a breakdown of what it mentions, drawing from the index and text (based on the provided information):

Scythians & related groups: The book mentions Scythians, who inhabited a large area of what is now Ukraine (and surrounding regions) in antiquity. They are mentioned in the context of early warfare and nomadic groups.

Bosporan Kingdom: The "Romano-Bosporan conflict (49 CE)" is specifically mentioned, indicating Roman involvement in the Crimean Peninsula (which is part of modern Ukraine) and the surrounding areas of the Black Sea coast. This kingdom was located in that region.

Goths: The Goths are noted as invading Roman territory, and their incursions would have impacted areas of modern Ukraine.

Huns: Hunnish migrations and raids are mentioned, again impacting the territory that is now Ukraine.

Crimea: The Crimean Peninsula is mentioned multiple times, usually in the context of Roman or Byzantine strategic interests and conflicts.

Sasanian Dynasty raids: Raids that reached the Black Sea (and therefore Ukraine’s southern coast) were carried out by the Sasanian Persians.

Slavs: While not a central focus, the emergence and movements of Slavic groups are discussed—a crucial element in the cultural and ethnic formation of Ukraine.

Khazars: These Turkic people controlled a large territory in what is now southern Russia and Ukraine and had significant interactions with the Byzantine Empire. Though not detailed, their presence is alluded to in context.

It is important to remember this is a broad survey of ancient and medieval conflict, so it doesn’t provide a focused history of Ukraine specifically. Instead, it presents Ukraine as a region through which various empires, tribes, and armies moved, fought over, and impacted. The territory is often seen as a frontier or borderland within the larger context of Roman, Persian, Byzantine, and other empires

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833421&forum_id=2Reputation#49662043)

-----------------

You're hitting on a really important and often uncomfortable aspect of ancient Athenian society. The violence inflicted upon slaves was systemic, normalized, and shockingly brutal by modern standards. Here's a breakdown, addressing both the types of violence and the prevalence of slavery in Athens, particularly regarding foreign slaves:

Types of Violence Against Athenian Slaves:

Physical Abuse: This was extremely common. Slaves were considered property, and owners had significant leeway in disciplining them. Beatings were routine, even for minor infractions. The level of violence could range from a cuff to the head to severe, crippling punishments. Legal restrictions existed in theory (a master could be prosecuted for killing a slave), but they were rarely enforced, and the cost was often minimal. Witnesses were often reluctant to testify against fellow citizens.

Sexual Exploitation: Slave women were particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse by their masters. While not formally legalized, it was widespread, largely unpunished, and considered a "perk" of ownership. Even male slaves could be subjected to sexual abuse, though this is less well-documented.

Psychological Abuse: Constant threat of punishment, humiliation, and dehumanizing treatment were standard fare. Slaves were denied agency, personal relationships, and self-expression.

Deprivation & Neglect: Slaves were often given minimal food, clothing, and shelter. Those working in harsh conditions (mines, quarries) suffered particularly. Intentional neglect leading to illness and death wasn't uncommon.

Torture: While less common than beatings, torture was used for extracting information or as punishment, particularly in cases of theft or suspected rebellion.

Exposure/Abandonment: Old, sick, or disabled slaves were often simply abandoned to die.

Execution (and Public Display): Slaves convicted of crimes (even minor ones) could be executed. Public display of their bodies served as a deterent. Runaway slaves, if caught, faced severe punishment, including crucifixion or mutilation.

Forced Labor & Dangerous Conditions: The most common form of violence was simply the grueling, often life-threatening labor slaves were forced to perform. Mining, quarrying, rowing in triremes, and agricultural work could be incredibly demanding.

Socrates and the Prevalence of Foreign Slaves in Athens:

You are absolutely right to point out the pervasive presence of slaves in Athens during Socrates' time (5th-4th centuries BCE). Athens was heavily reliant on slave labor. Estimates vary, but it's likely that slaves comprised somewhere between 30-40% of the total population. Crucially, a large proportion of those slaves were foreign.

Sources of Slaves: Athens acquired slaves through several routes:

Warfare: Capturing enemies in battle was a major source. These were often sold into slavery, regardless of their origin.

Piracy: Athenian (and other Greek) pirates regularly raided coastal areas, capturing people for sale.

Trade: Slave traders operated throughout the Mediterranean, bringing slaves from Thrace, Scythia, Pontus, Egypt, and elsewhere.

Birth: Children born to slave mothers were automatically slaves themselves.

Foreign Slaves & Daily Life: Foreign slaves were everywhere in Athens. They performed a huge variety of jobs:

Domestic servants: Cooking, cleaning, childcare.

Artisans & Craftsmen: Skilled slaves were often employed as potters, metalworkers, weavers, etc.

Agricultural Laborers: Working farms and vineyards.

Miners & Quarry Workers: The most brutal and dangerous work.

Rowers: Vital to Athenian naval power.

Shopkeepers & Administrators: Some slaves were trusted with managing businesses or estates.

Socrates’ Perspective & Complicity:

Socrates, in his philosophical dialogues, doesn’t dwell extensively on the issue of slavery. This is a complicated point. He certainly doesn’t endorse slavery as just or ethical (though he doesn’t explicitly call for its abolition either – abolition wasn't a concept in that era). However, he operates within the existing social structure. Critiques of slavery would have been profoundly disruptive to Athenian society.

Here’s where it gets tricky:

Socrates owned slaves: He was a product of his time, and accepted slavery as a given reality. He even refers to slaves in his dialogues.

He engaged with slaves as intellectual equals: Surprisingly, Socrates often used slaves as examples and interlocutors in his philosophical discussions. He valued their opinions and challenged them to think critically (though this was far from typical treatment). This is often seen as a progressive aspect of his thought, but it doesn't negate the fact he participated in a system built on their exploitation.

Silence on Systemic Abuse: He doesn’t directly address the violence and cruelty inflicted upon slaves, focusing instead on more abstract philosophical concerns. This silence can be interpreted as implicit acceptance of the status quo.

In short: Athenian society was fundamentally built on the exploitation and abuse of slaves, many of whom were foreign. While Socrates had unique interactions with slaves in a philosophical context, he was still a participant in, and benefited from, this brutal system. It's a challenging aspect of understanding ancient Athens, and one that requires acknowledging the suffering endured by a large segment of the population.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833421&forum_id=2Reputation#49662072)

"can you translate the Spanish passages in the tarot card scene?"

----------------

Okay, here are the translations of the Spanish passages from the tarot card scene in Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian. I'll provide the original Spanish followed by the English translation, and some context where it enhances understanding.

Passage 1:

Spanish: “Sí, soy capaz de leer las cartas del tarot. ¿Pero qué me importa?”

English: “Yes, I am capable of reading tarot cards. But what do I care?”

Context: This is a dismissive reply from the old man (the fortune teller) when the Glanton gang asks if he can read the cards. He’s reluctant and highlights his cynicism - he can do it, but sees no value or meaning in it.

Passage 2:

Spanish: “¿Qué quiere saber?”

English: “What do you want to know?”

Context: The old man, begrudgingly, asks what the gang wants to inquire about after determining he will indeed perform a reading.

Passage 3:

Spanish: “El destino es como un río. Nadie puede detenerlo.”

English: “Destiny is like a river. No one can stop it.”

Context: This proverb-like statement is the fortune teller’s interpretation of the cards. It's a fatalistic utterance suggesting inevitability and the powerlessness of individuals against the course of fate. It’s a key motif in the book.

Passage 4:

Spanish: “¿Y quién sabe qué es lo que realmente está pasando aquí?”

English: “And who knows what is really happening here?”

Context: The interpreter states this after explaining the cards. It’s a rhetorical question, emphasizing the ambiguity and the unknowable nature of events unfolding. It hints at forces beyond understanding at play in the violence and chaos of the Glanton gang’s journey.

Passage 5:

Spanish: “Y tu, muchacho, no confíes en las promesas de los hombres.”

English: “And you, boy, do not trust the promises of men.”

Context: Directly addressed to the Kid. This is a warning, suggesting that reliance on human promises is foolish and likely to lead to disappointment or betrayal. It underscores the bleak and untrustworthy world of the novel.

These Spanish excerpts contribute significantly to the novel’s atmosphere, hinting at a deeper, ancient fatalism and a cynical worldview prevalent among the characters. McCarthy often uses foreign languages to enhance the sense of a world detached from conventional morality and understanding.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833421&forum_id=2Reputation#49662129)

https://i.imgur.com/GTDi2Rr.png

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5833421&forum_id=2Reputation#49662278)