The Hundred year was was basically a French Civil war given most of the English Monarchy and Nobility were Normans. So I think it's still French.

The more realistic estimates are that 400,000 people out a population just over 2million are dead. That's 20%. It's so evil.

Same day we find out part of the reason Chappelle Roan turned down playing at the White House to the President was because she had wanted to derail it to talk about Palestine and her publicist was like you really really shouldn't do that. Which is disappointing that she caved on that plan, but the liberals would have definitely crucified her for doing it too. And it is nice that the upcoming LGBT star is pro-Palestine.

Part of the reason there is some confusion is the term pre-dates the Marxist use of the term, which Lenin originated. Just like how imperialism was a term, but Lenin used it to refer to a specific phenomena of capitalism. In fact I think he originates it in Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism (though he might have used it earlier, I can't remember)

The original term in the late 19th century was just used for a well paid worker. This is what a whole heap of non-marxist people still use.

The IWW started using it in the early 20th century specifically to refer to professionals like engineers, doctors, skilled craftsmen, who were insulated from the same conditions as other workers. Who would often have guilds, rather than unions. The IWW specifically being Anarchists, Syndicalists, Marxists, DeLeonists and other various socialists, but not Marxist-Leninists. So you also hear it used in some union contexts still. Not that the IWW really is around in any real numbers, but it sort of spread to less radical unions.

Then Lenin uses the term to apply to all workers in the imperial core as is mentioned in other comments here. Despite myself holding to the Marxist-Leninist position I have basically dropped it from my vocabulary due to the ambiguity. I will say well paid proletariat, or imperial core proletariat etc

There was a user, like in the first 12mths of the site, who popped up at least twice (the second time with a new account) to suggest the solution to California's water problems should be a pipeline from the great lakes. And they seemed to really thought it was a good idea beyond simple trolling.

And they kept arguing back when people pointed out how that wasn't possibly legally or politically as there's treaties between the USA and Canada. That it wasn't practical in terms of cost or logistics. That it would damage the ecosystem of the great lakes. That California would be fine if they just stopped water intensive crop farming and recycled water (even before considering solar powered desalinisation).

And they weren't like a lib (or more than any of us). Their answer to things like treaties or costs was often things like "well after a socialist revolution there won't be a Canada and USA with those treaties" or "we could build this pipeline with a centrally planned economy" etc