Aaron Hershkowitz
@ahersheykow.bsky.social
Acquisitions Librarian, digital scholar, classicist, historian, foodie
I think that you are setting to high a standard for "major historical actor." (And perhaps too narrow a definition of history.)
In addition to Thucydides and Caesar, I'd include Xenophon, Caesar, Duris of Samos, Arrian, the Dios Chrysostom and Cassius, Josephus, and Sallust.
In addition to Thucydides and Caesar, I'd include Xenophon, Caesar, Duris of Samos, Arrian, the Dios Chrysostom and Cassius, Josephus, and Sallust.
July 6, 2025 at 11:58 PM
I think that you are setting to high a standard for "major historical actor." (And perhaps too narrow a definition of history.)
In addition to Thucydides and Caesar, I'd include Xenophon, Caesar, Duris of Samos, Arrian, the Dios Chrysostom and Cassius, Josephus, and Sallust.
In addition to Thucydides and Caesar, I'd include Xenophon, Caesar, Duris of Samos, Arrian, the Dios Chrysostom and Cassius, Josephus, and Sallust.
Setting aside Harvard, UCLA actually had ~18 billion in assets as of the most recent fiscal report in FY23.
(This data is open and easily accessible.)
It also has ~19b in liabilities.
Annual revenues are ~11.1b, and expenses ~11.7b.
That UCLA is large does not mean that it is thriving.
(This data is open and easily accessible.)
It also has ~19b in liabilities.
Annual revenues are ~11.1b, and expenses ~11.7b.
That UCLA is large does not mean that it is thriving.
June 1, 2025 at 10:06 PM
Setting aside Harvard, UCLA actually had ~18 billion in assets as of the most recent fiscal report in FY23.
(This data is open and easily accessible.)
It also has ~19b in liabilities.
Annual revenues are ~11.1b, and expenses ~11.7b.
That UCLA is large does not mean that it is thriving.
(This data is open and easily accessible.)
It also has ~19b in liabilities.
Annual revenues are ~11.1b, and expenses ~11.7b.
That UCLA is large does not mean that it is thriving.
For the next year or two it's probably still a competitive game (it's tragic that we haven't been using this format for the last 5 years).
That said, if not restricted to Allstar selections, I'd just take the Cavs starting 5 - already 3 Allstars, Allen is great, and they know how to play together.
That said, if not restricted to Allstar selections, I'd just take the Cavs starting 5 - already 3 Allstars, Allen is great, and they know how to play together.
February 15, 2025 at 2:06 PM
For the next year or two it's probably still a competitive game (it's tragic that we haven't been using this format for the last 5 years).
That said, if not restricted to Allstar selections, I'd just take the Cavs starting 5 - already 3 Allstars, Allen is great, and they know how to play together.
That said, if not restricted to Allstar selections, I'd just take the Cavs starting 5 - already 3 Allstars, Allen is great, and they know how to play together.