6 ms·

Indeed she reigned for about 30% of U.S. history. (credit for observation goes to Matt Glassman)

by ddlatham 4y ago

ijidak 4y ago
Wow. That puts in perspective how long she lived and reigned... And how young the U.S. is.
logicchains 4y ago
And she was queen of Australia for over 57% of its history.
- rozenmd 4y ago
  Pretty sure she wasn't around for over 30k years
  - wl 4y ago
    30,000 years veers well into the realm of pre-history.
  - kixiQu 4y ago
    For anyone wondering: > The Tjapwurung, an Aboriginal people in what is now southern Australia, shared the story of this bird hunt from generation to generation across an unbelievably large slice of time—many more millennia than one might think possible. The birds (most likely the species with the scientific name Genyornis newtoni) memorialized in this tale are now long extinct. Yet the story of the Tjapwurung’s “tradition respecting the existence” of these birds conveys how people pursued the giant animals. At the time of this particular hunt, between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago, volcanoes in the area were erupting, wrote amateur ethnographer James Dawson in his 1881 book Australian Aborigines, and so scientists have been able to corroborate this oral history by dating volcanic rocks. ... > What are the limits of such ancient memories? For what length of time can knowledge be transferred within oral societies before its essence becomes irretrievably lost? Under optimal conditions, as suggested by science-determined ages for events recalled in ancient stories, orally shared knowledge can demonstrably endure more than 7,000 years, quite possibly 10,000, but probably not much longer. https://www.sapiens.org/language/oral-tradition/ https://www.sapiens.org/language/oral-tradition/ So, anyway, be it 10k or 30k, definitely within an era of "history" and not "pre-history"
- thundergolfer 4y ago
  Maybe we can finally become a Republic.
  - jen729w 4y ago
    Ugh, and suffer Tony Abbott as President? Serious question: name someone who might realistically be President who would not make you sad.
    - rajamaka 4y ago
      I would image most Australians would prefer Albo as our head of state rather than King Charles.
      - drekipus 4y ago
        You're kidding right.
        palmetieri2000 4y ago
        What? Most Australians do not support the monarchy, a lot of Australians want a republic. For all of those Australians, having the democratically elected PM become president is clearly superior than having an unelected monarch be the head of state. You're the one kidding, mate.
        ehnto 4y ago
        We might find out soon I suppose, no shortage of calls for a referendum. I imagine the dilly dallying has just been because the Queen was quite favorable, and didn't meddle. A don't fix what isn't broken situation.
        jrmcauliffe 4y ago
        A king who is also secretly The Duke of Cornwall, The Duke of Somerset, The Duke of Norfolk and The Duke of Richmond Sign me up..!
- markdown 4y ago
  Ahh, yes, because Australia began with the whitefella.
  - denkmoon 4y ago
    Approximately zero of the indigenous population present prior to settlement by Europeans would have identified as being Australian, or of being born in Australia, or anything like that. Definitively, yes, Australia "began" with European settlement of the continent.
    - batiudrami 4y ago
      So what? It’s just a name. Australia was still here; people were living here. Who are you to definitively declare this? Perhaps this may seem like semantics to someone who doesn’t live here but I find this sentiment at best ignorant and at worst offensive.
      - denkmoon 4y ago
        Except I do live here, and it's patently ridiculous to say The Commonwealth of Australia is anything but an invention of European settlers. Of which Queen Elizabeth II was the Head of State for 57% of its existence. Which is the context of this comment thread.
        batiudrami 4y ago
        It didn’t say “The Commonwealth it Australia’s existence” it said 57% of Australia’s history which I maintain is fundamentally incorrect. However, I think there is nothing further to be gained here as we would be arguing semantics.
        denkmoon 4y ago
        Common sense would dictate that GP is talking about the country not the continent, as continents typically do not have heads of state :)
- graderjs 4y ago
  1788 mate.
  - thematrixturtle 4y ago
    That was New South Wales. The Commonwealth of Australia was founded on Jan 1st 1901.
    - graderjs 4y ago
      Yes, the commonwealth. Federation was not the start of Australia. It was colonisation. We began 1788, mate. That's it. You can't just erase all those years of history or say they weren't part of our history, because they're "unpalatable". Ugh. Did you forget your history that you learned in school? :)
      - thematrixturtle 4y ago
        The GP's statement was completely factual: the title of "Queen of Australia" only came into existence in 1901 when the states of what is now Australia federated. Before that, the Queen was head of state individually over six separate colonies.
        wizofaus 4y ago
        Very briefly in 1901 mind you - Queen Victoria died 21 days after federation, to be succeeded by her son (Edward).
        graderjs 4y ago
        Factual? From what point of view? The narrow one that Australia only existed after federation? That's f*** ridiculous I'm sorry. It was called Australia way before that. And the Queen was still the queen of those f*** colonies come on. It's not factual, Australia's history extends from more than 200 years. Why do engineers have to be so narrow about definitions: they think they're right but they're wrong they're just not seeing the other points of view. They just paint themselves into a corner on a narrow definition and then double down... it's f*** pathetic. But they use this to be abusive and quarrelsome and start fights, on the false pretense that they're right and they're the only right. it's b****. rather than just going, "yeah there's another point of view." Like how you can question 1788 is the start of Australia is just ridiculous. And the monarch was the monarch of Australia for all that time because it was a British colony and then federation and we still have those heads of state. so it's not completely factual... what I said is factual what the other person said is wrong or limited to the point of view of federation. To argue against what I'm saying is crazy. What's the point of it even it's just like picking fights. Your facts don't cover the reality of the situation I'm sorry. Australia is not just a name on a piece of paper after federation. Why do engineers think a single fact conveys the whole truth. Then I realize it's abusive to stick to that and not consider all the points of view...ugh. whatever. Convince yourself what you want man but it's not the truth. But I don't think you've got any skin in the game to even argue this... Haha :)

Indeed she reigned for about 30% of U.S. history. (credit for observation goes to Matt Glassman)

ijidak 4y ago

Wow. That puts in perspective how long she lived and reigned... And how young the U.S. is.

logicchains 4y ago

And she was queen of Australia for over 57% of its history.

rozenmd 4y ago
Pretty sure she wasn't around for over 30k years
- wl 4y ago
  30,000 years veers well into the realm of pre-history.
- kixiQu 4y ago
  For anyone wondering: > The Tjapwurung, an Aboriginal people in what is now southern Australia, shared the story of this bird hunt from generation to generation across an unbelievably large slice of time—many more millennia than one might think possible. The birds (most likely the species with the scientific name Genyornis newtoni) memorialized in this tale are now long extinct. Yet the story of the Tjapwurung’s “tradition respecting the existence” of these birds conveys how people pursued the giant animals. At the time of this particular hunt, between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago, volcanoes in the area were erupting, wrote amateur ethnographer James Dawson in his 1881 book Australian Aborigines, and so scientists have been able to corroborate this oral history by dating volcanic rocks. ... > What are the limits of such ancient memories? For what length of time can knowledge be transferred within oral societies before its essence becomes irretrievably lost? Under optimal conditions, as suggested by science-determined ages for events recalled in ancient stories, orally shared knowledge can demonstrably endure more than 7,000 years, quite possibly 10,000, but probably not much longer. https://www.sapiens.org/language/oral-tradition/ https://www.sapiens.org/language/oral-tradition/ So, anyway, be it 10k or 30k, definitely within an era of "history" and not "pre-history"
thundergolfer 4y ago
Maybe we can finally become a Republic.
- jen729w 4y ago
  Ugh, and suffer Tony Abbott as President? Serious question: name someone who might realistically be President who would not make you sad.
  - rajamaka 4y ago
    I would image most Australians would prefer Albo as our head of state rather than King Charles.
    - drekipus 4y ago
      You're kidding right.
      - palmetieri2000 4y ago
        What? Most Australians do not support the monarchy, a lot of Australians want a republic. For all of those Australians, having the democratically elected PM become president is clearly superior than having an unelected monarch be the head of state. You're the one kidding, mate.
        ehnto 4y ago
        We might find out soon I suppose, no shortage of calls for a referendum. I imagine the dilly dallying has just been because the Queen was quite favorable, and didn't meddle. A don't fix what isn't broken situation.
        jrmcauliffe 4y ago
        A king who is also secretly The Duke of Cornwall, The Duke of Somerset, The Duke of Norfolk and The Duke of Richmond Sign me up..!
markdown 4y ago
Ahh, yes, because Australia began with the whitefella.
- denkmoon 4y ago
  Approximately zero of the indigenous population present prior to settlement by Europeans would have identified as being Australian, or of being born in Australia, or anything like that. Definitively, yes, Australia "began" with European settlement of the continent.
  - batiudrami 4y ago
    So what? It’s just a name. Australia was still here; people were living here. Who are you to definitively declare this? Perhaps this may seem like semantics to someone who doesn’t live here but I find this sentiment at best ignorant and at worst offensive.
    - denkmoon 4y ago
      Except I do live here, and it's patently ridiculous to say The Commonwealth of Australia is anything but an invention of European settlers. Of which Queen Elizabeth II was the Head of State for 57% of its existence. Which is the context of this comment thread.
      - batiudrami 4y ago
        It didn’t say “The Commonwealth it Australia’s existence” it said 57% of Australia’s history which I maintain is fundamentally incorrect. However, I think there is nothing further to be gained here as we would be arguing semantics.
        denkmoon 4y ago
        Common sense would dictate that GP is talking about the country not the continent, as continents typically do not have heads of state :)
graderjs 4y ago
1788 mate.
- thematrixturtle 4y ago
  That was New South Wales. The Commonwealth of Australia was founded on Jan 1st 1901.
  - graderjs 4y ago
    Yes, the commonwealth. Federation was not the start of Australia. It was colonisation. We began 1788, mate. That's it. You can't just erase all those years of history or say they weren't part of our history, because they're "unpalatable". Ugh. Did you forget your history that you learned in school? :)
    - thematrixturtle 4y ago
      The GP's statement was completely factual: the title of "Queen of Australia" only came into existence in 1901 when the states of what is now Australia federated. Before that, the Queen was head of state individually over six separate colonies.
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        Very briefly in 1901 mind you - Queen Victoria died 21 days after federation, to be succeeded by her son (Edward).
      - graderjs 4y ago
        Factual? From what point of view? The narrow one that Australia only existed after federation? That's f*** ridiculous I'm sorry. It was called Australia way before that. And the Queen was still the queen of those f*** colonies come on. It's not factual, Australia's history extends from more than 200 years. Why do engineers have to be so narrow about definitions: they think they're right but they're wrong they're just not seeing the other points of view. They just paint themselves into a corner on a narrow definition and then double down... it's f*** pathetic. But they use this to be abusive and quarrelsome and start fights, on the false pretense that they're right and they're the only right. it's b****. rather than just going, "yeah there's another point of view." Like how you can question 1788 is the start of Australia is just ridiculous. And the monarch was the monarch of Australia for all that time because it was a British colony and then federation and we still have those heads of state. so it's not completely factual... what I said is factual what the other person said is wrong or limited to the point of view of federation. To argue against what I'm saying is crazy. What's the point of it even it's just like picking fights. Your facts don't cover the reality of the situation I'm sorry. Australia is not just a name on a piece of paper after federation. Why do engineers think a single fact conveys the whole truth. Then I realize it's abusive to stick to that and not consider all the points of view...ugh. whatever. Convince yourself what you want man but it's not the truth. But I don't think you've got any skin in the game to even argue this... Haha :)