Well, how you interpret whether or not what we don't know will occur next can still be considered a fact depends on your core worldview (e.g., compatibilism, deterministic, fatalistic, etc.).
I subscribe to the belief that there are four types of knowledge and beliefs: ontological subjectivity, ontological objectivity, epistemological subjectivity, and epistemological objectivity. Various thoughts can be categorized into each one of these depending on what is being expressed.
kragen, chromosomes passed on from Spanish people from their own ancestries are not something that people distinguish/highlight--at least not in South America. You are right, however, in stating that, colloquially/conversationally, "Moorish" can mean lots of different ethnic groups, but in my field of study, this interpretation is usually seen as pejorative. So, I was specifically talking about the immigrants in the Iberian Peninsula from the time of Al Andalus.
Regarding "pink-skinned" American indigenous peoples, the thing you have to understand is that there are many patches of Latin American territory that are not visited or studied (you can say they remain "undiscovered"), so there is no nomenclature or taxonomy for a specific tribe. So, there are dozens of indigenous tribes with no names and many that haven't been discovered yet. I mentioned the areas where they are from so you can get an idea and Google the places (Huaraz, Pozuzo, etc.), but, as you know, there was an incredible amount of mixing from Europeans (from all over Western and Central Europe) and the indigenous peoples, in this case from Peru.
The study of non-Spanish European immigrants in other South American countries that are not Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, and I assume Southern Brazil, is still in its infancy, and, as an example (because I wrote on this and know more about it), German immigrants in many parts of the continent were never documented, and families of German descent (myself included) are only now formalizing everything and documenting where their ancestors came from and giving a rough estimate of a year of arrival based on memory and oral traditions. It's very difficult, though, because of the way Latin America functions, both politically, bureaucratically and socially. The take away point is that Latin America is a lot more diverse than books or numbers state, but the issue is that we can only guide ourselves by the numbers and facts (creating a dichotomy). This is why in Latin America we talk a lot about the "other history", the history that is not written or formalized, the history of oral tradition and information handed down through other means. Even in Argentina, there is a movie called "La historia oficial". It is one of Latin America's major themes in history.
Despite all this, here I go citing numbers again (because, unfortunately, that is what we have to work with): there are only 48 million indigenous peoples (discovered) in all of the Americas. Usually, only people who consider themselves "indigenous" (there is a social aspect to it, too, not just biological) speak an indigenous language. This means indigenous peoples are a minority and, in fact, are in danger of becoming extinct.
The reason why I brought up Peru and Bolivia is because they have the highest population of aborigines, and because they understand that they need to be protected. Peru and Cuba have a long history of sociopolitical discourse protecting minorities and different ethnicities.
Despite this "other history" and "undiscovered tribes", I do believe it is better to err on the side of caution. There is still much to be done and studied in Latin America. Because each group of people lives a different "reality" and each region is so isolated from one another, I'd rather think there is more to be found out and looked at, because not everything is as homogenized and connected as the United States (but even there, Americans aren't aware of customs and differences between other regions, and how many parts of the country look like a "developing nation").
Anyway, I need to cut this short, but on the subject of syncretism, the major indigenous gods were transferred over to Catholicism because Europeans needed a way to explain to indigenous peoples about Christianity, and as masters of proselytism, they understood that they had to get on their good side and gain their trust ("tame" them, in colonial speak) in order to facilitate a conquest. So, there is some overlap, but not much, because the God of Rain or God of Thunder had no real equivalent in Christianity, and Europeans taught indigenous peoples that these gods were inferior and these characteristics were held by an all-mightier god. So, most indigenous creation gods became the equivalent of the Christian God. As such Tonantzin, the female counter part of an All Mighty God, became Virgen de Guadalupe in Nueva España, just as the First Council of Constantinople made the Virgin Mary "official". Both of these female counterparts were created for similar reasons and both were derived from pagan gods/concepts.
Anyway, yes, of course, Suriname, Belize and Guyana aren't Latin American countries, but they are territorially in Latin America, and I mentioned them since you mentioned Haiti, which isn't really considered a Latin American country (there is a whole debate on what we should call "Latin America" or Spanish-speaking countries and what countries should be included, along with Brazil and Spain). So, I mentioned these other countries just in case.
Let me first say this confusion exists also amongst some Latin Americans because there is a lack of Latin American history (as South American and Central American continents) taught in Latin America. Each country focuses largely on their own because each country has such a rich and diverse history.
But let's take your argument apart.
BROWN:
The whole subject of "brown" and their diverse shades has been discussed before and is currently joked about in Peruvian politics, where Alan García said he was more Peruvian because of his "copper" skin color. Naturally, this is ridiculed by most because it is a joke to talk about skin color since mestizos can be all shades of brown (indigenous blood notwithstanding). And then there is tanning (even mentioning this sounds ridiculous); as in, there are people with lighter skin who just happen to be tanned, because they live in an area where it is mostly sunny (sometimes all year round). You'll find a higher percentage of "white"-looking people in capital cities in Latin America. And many mestizos can pass off as Spanish (from Spain, just in case it isn't clear). And there are also indigenous peoples who are white (see indigenous groups that live closer to the Andean Cordillera or similar places of higher altitudes, such as Huaraz where there is a mix of all skin colors and valleys such as Pasco where there is an Austro-German community that immigrated there from the late 1800s. Uruguay probably has a larger "white" population than Argentina, and Paraguay has a very high one, too. You'll find lots of white people in Southern Brazil. One last thing about "brown", Latin Americans generally accept, rightfully so, that being "brown" has very little to do with Moorish or African ancestry, and if you have any noticeable Moorish or African features, you are mostly considered to have "black" attributes, since blacks do not originate from Latin America.
LANGUAGE:
No, most people do not speak French as their native language in Latin America and the Caribbeans. Haiti is the obvious one that has French and Creole as their official language, but only about 10% speak it fluently, and this is in a population of 9 million. French Guiana obviously has French as their official language, but they're a population of 217,000 with many people speaking other dialects and languages. Suriname has Dutch as their official language, with Guyana and Belize having English as theirs and a minority speak other Cariban languages, with tiny Belize having 40% Spanish speakers, I believe. These countries are minorities, though. That's about it for French. Portuguese is only spoken in Brazil, a country with a population of 203 million. All this out of a population of 580 million in Latin America. As for Guaraní, yes, it is an official language of Paraguay, with 4,650,000 speakers; a majority since the country's population is 6 million, but still a minority within the total Latin American population. If you want to count a language that is spoken by 200,000 people (Mapuzugun), go ahead, but then we start getting into the smaller languages and dialects, too, which are many, all throughout Latin America. Peru and Bolivia are interesting in that they sought to preserve indigenous culture. Peru's official languages are Spanish, Quechua and Aymara, in order of amount of speakers. Aymara is actually spoken by very few Peruvians, though, and Quechua by 13% of the population--another minority language. Quechua is spoken by 20% of Bolivia's population, and Aymara 14%, with Spanish being the majority.
I mention all of this so you can have a perspective for what I am about to say about language in Argentina. When colonizers arrived in modern day Argentina, there were about 35 languages spoken there. Now there are only 12. A variant of Quechua (called Quichua, most likely different from the "Incan" Quechua) is spoken in Santiago de Estero by 100,000 people, a city founded by Spanish settlers. Four Guaraní variants are spoken in Argentina: Chiriguano (known in Argentina as Ñandeva) spoken in Jujuy and Salta by about 15,000 people; the Guaraní Correntino is the official language of Corrientes; Mbyá is spoken by 3,000 people in Misiones; and lastly, the Paraguayan Guaraní spoken at various parts of the borders. Chaco has "co-official" languages: Qom, Moqoít, and Wichí (spoken by 45,000) from the Mataco language family. In Rosario, there are about 10,000 Wichi speakers/peoples. There are other dialects and subdialects such as Mivaclé, Chorote, and in Patagonia (Santa Cruz, specifically), Tehuelche (Aonikenk or Aonek'o 'ajen), with all these also being minority languages/dialects and the last spoken by just a few; there used to be more in the south, but the Conquest of the Desert nearly wiped them all out.
My point is there is a wealth of variety in each country, and many minority languages and minority peoples. Argentina is not an exception. All of them mixed with some type of European, whether it was a Western, Central or Eastern European.
And just to be clear, very few Catholics believe in Catholic saints that correspond to "American gods". And if by "American religions" you mean "indigenous religions", then, no. Most of Latin America is Roman Catholic, with an increasing number of Protestants, namely in Brazil.
Could it be you're (gasp!) not informed instead of it being "non-sequiturial"?
Saying Miami is more Latin American than Buenos Aires is stereotypical and prejudice because this statement suggests there is something intrinsically Latin American about Latin America. Latin America is a huge space (a population of 580,086,590 which the parent seeks to generalize), there are various cultures and subcultures, various languages and dialects. Whatever J. Lo has brainwashed people into thinking is "Latin American" is not all-encompassing and should not be representative of it.
Thus, Buenos Aires is just as very Latin American as La Paz or San Juan or Rio de Janeiro or Havana.
The fact that more Italians immigrated to Argentina does not make them more "European", since Spain, the country that colonized most of Latin America is European. Since its colonization, Latin America adopted a lot of traditions from Spain and the rest of Europe, thanks to many Latin American governments asking for more European immigrants to "fill the void" and work the land. However, not all countries adopted the same traditions to the same degree and some preferred other European traditions (that could also be shared with Spain, Portugal and the rest of Western Europe).
Thus, the statement "Buenos Aires is not particularly representative of Latin America, it's more like a hybrid between LatAm and Europe" is wrong because most of Latin America includes Europe in its transculturation, acculturation, syncretism, miscegenation and hybridity.
My point is why call it Paleo-anything (2.0, etc.) if it only resembles it in a maximum of 35%? And that's not even counting that you eat cheese, butter, yogurt and chocolate.
I'm not criticizing your diet, I'm criticizing how you label it.
From the little that I've read in your post, it sounds like you're just a healthy ovo-lacto vegetarian.
One of the major parts of the Paleolithic diet is consuming at least 65% meat. With this in mind, you can see how your diet is very much not like theirs.
Argh. This is what I don't like about non-tech, -IT, and -CS articles posted on HN: people go off on tangents with so little (useless) information. I'm sorry to say this article is poor on information.
Let's stick to the facts. Complex carbs (brown rice, whole wheat bread, bagels, whole wheat pasta, beans - the list of delicious, healthy complex carbs is long) in moderation does not hinder your health. In fact, your body needs them because it is stored energy. Other sources of energy are used up quicker, such as protein. That's not to say carbs are better than protein. Your body needs both!
Now, refined SIMPLE carbs (table sugar, fruit juice, "packaged" cereals, chocolate bars, etc.) are not good for you, and only certain types of bodies with certain physical activity should consume them (e.g., if you are a bodybuilder or if you lift weights a few times a week, etc.). It is still absolutely tantamount that you consume unrefined simple carbs such as strawberries, raspberries, oranges, apples, plum, pear, a long etc., and the number one fruit because of its flavanoid content: blueberries!).
Put simply, fruits and complex carbs help you convert what you eat in slow-releasing energy that has less content that is turned into fat (as opposed to refined simple carbs). This steady release of energy is part of "moderation is key". If you have your body working too hard, your heart fluttering/palpitations and overworking it are not healthy, neither is when your body processes everything too slow.
The biggest factor when consuming carbs (both simple and complex) is the glycemic levels in your blood. You can't have this fluctuate so much, especially if you're pre-disposed to it, otherwise you throw it out of kilter and it may cause diabetes.
I'll keep the fat part short. We need fat, too! Let me be less "headliney". We need polyunsaturated fatty acids; in part, to keep our metabolism going. Foods like avocado, fish, flax seed, leafy vegetables, soybeans, walnuts (nuts), and shellfish. Sure, saturated fats may not be the major cause of heart disease, but lessening it while consuming a healthy amount of polyunsaturated fat and complex carbs might. You can read an article on that here (it's better than the OP's article, but still has its flaws): http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/rethinking-satura... (By the way, this article was published over a year ago.)
Having said all that, each body is different. You should tailor your diet to what your body reacts positively to. For example, flax seed is healthy for you, but I know people who get diarrhea from it. Obviously, don't force yourself to eat something your body doesn't like. Listen to your body, because, unfortunately, the science doesn't fully understand all body types.
I'm not a fan of fallacies from defective induction, so I shall refrain from an argumentum ad verecundiam on this, but on a separate note, I will say my friend studied nutrition and she has expressed a keen dislike toward the "Food guide pyramid".
> I think it would be quite practical if some religion researcher could prove once and for all whether there was one or more Gods, and if so what His and/or Their properties might be.
Your petition reveals the extent of your knowledge of Religious Studies.
Or: "Small Team + Big Ideas," no? Since the article says, "A year from now, he expects the company won’t have launched 20 small, cool ideas, but it will have developed four-to-six big, audacious ones."
> Did you watch the video? While I don't play violin, my wife's a composer (and plays viola & cello), and that 'electric violin' portion of the video was probably the most cringe-worthy part of the video.
I agree.
I'm a musician and compose. I also used to do live performances and loops in my more "experimental" music. This is an expensive toy for such limited use.
His target audience can't be classical musicians, because of all the nuances that go into physically playing an instrument. It doesn't take a lot of knowledge to realize this, so it makes me wonder why he or who in the world would suggest this. I've played simple virtual instruments and VSTs like this, and the dynamic range and capability is extremely limited. The only virtual piano I would play would be Synthogy Ivory. The keyboard on the Invisible Instrument app didn't even have more than one octave, as far as I was able to see.
Students wanting to learn an instrument would be hindered by this. Just for string instruments, learning how to tune and hold it, posture and the tactile dynamics is a world of difference. This toy would only contribute to acquiring bad habits, as you can tell when the creator begins to "play" the violin. Having said that, why would this app be for classical musicians?
If he incorporates a looping device or a sequencer into it, there might be a use for this within the rock/hobbyist/experimental crowd.
I don't like saying this, because it probably sounds really pretentious and/or condescending, but this is most likely for the non-musician; the person who is not interested in music. That is, it's meant for the person who has some spare time and spare money, or kids who get money from their parents and don't mind spending their money mindlessly.
Lastly, I think the only positive I can see in this is that it might be able to teach you theory. Otherwise, once you factor in the cost of the Wii Remote, it's an expensive toy that doesn't do much except trigger cheesy synthy sounds through Bluetooth.
Western music theory and programming are similar in that both are systematic concepts and can use numbers or "functions" to express them. The thing is, that description fits many things (even painting, drawing, photography, etc.), so it makes the relationship between programming and music less unique and less noteworthy.
I subscribe to the belief that there are four types of knowledge and beliefs: ontological subjectivity, ontological objectivity, epistemological subjectivity, and epistemological objectivity. Various thoughts can be categorized into each one of these depending on what is being expressed.