The point however is not that of protecting copyright, but that copyright protection was invented to usurp technology which was not truly invented. This is how controlling history controls the present, for if all roads lead back to "we invented this and own it" then all roads forwards must pay that toll. If the narrative were not true, then the premise could not hold.

The cause behind this narrative hustle is the industrial historical arrogation which teaches that knitting was not invented until 1000 years after "The Romans". They had textiles, weaving, but no knitting.

This is early mere patent protection during the capitol rush of industrialism, claiming devices which were not actually invented as pretended, and therefor should have no claim to copyrights. The cotton gin was not invented in 1793.

Moreover it is a supremely ignorant and abstract notion, showing how detached academia is from reality. Anybody with time on their hands and some vines may invent weaving, knotting, knitting, and with metal slivers many ways to make pins. There has never been a people without this technology.

How is it explained that some ships when buried were farther out from what we are to presume was the old shoreline? Would not the tide or some authority have moved them one way or another long before then?

The ships buried more inland are in places apparently not accessible to ships at the time, the shore did not go inland that far according to other depictions.

It appears the mint governors are paying attention to the internet scholarship, or why would they suddenly make this page with redundant yet skimpy details? As if to tell the platforms "this is the doctrine about the buried ships of San Francisco, update your community notes and fact checking."

Sure enough, google AI gave this very link immediately for several useless references when pushed for records.

This of course cannot be allowed to happen, so the the legal system is just a limbo, a bar which regular individuals must strain to pass under but that corporations regularly overstep.

Many of the roofs in the background appear to be masonry, compared to the modern tile roofing seen in the foreground, and the masonry roofs are very weathered. All of the masonry looks like it has a 200 year old patina impervious to power washing. Behind it all and only slightly taller than all of the structures, a hill that looks distinctly dug out, and which exposed dirt is the same coloras the patina on the old roofs.

But I doubt the politicians "don't bat an eye" at 200M, for they know that money is going straight out of the economy and into private coffers.

The government budgeters are not naive to the economics of military spending. The cope about pennies on the tax dollar is naive about both economics and what the government is really doing.

This idea that government is incapable, dumb, and prone to mismanagement is a harmful rationalization, and simply not true. If anything, this thinking excuses the government to act that way, and then there is no way of knowing if they are purposefully mismanaging or doing so because incapable.

Very few people would willingly pay for military spending if for example when they buy food they are prompted with the option "do you want to give 30 cents to the military industrial complex?" And that "very few people" would not in sum render 1 Trillion.

Chump together all the 100s of millions in waste year over year; the change to your chumping is not good change, its inflation and general impoverishment. Every penny of that 200 is a note in the bank of inflation and degradation.