BThe oldest hard evidence of humans using cannabis to get high is 2,800 years old.
AFrom a Siberian tomb? That's specific.
BPolymarket posted it on X. Science published the study.
AThe study found seeds and molecular traces of psychoactive compounds in human hair.
BSo not just buried with a plant. The person actually inhaled or consumed it.
AExactly. That hair is the tell. It's the earliest directly dated proof.
BYou sound almost disappointed it's not a modern headline.
ANo, it's a great story. But one tomb is one person.
BThat's the point, Adam. People have been seeking altered states forever. This isn't a fad.
AOne person doesn't prove a whole culture did it.
BIt proves the practice existed, and it goes back nearly three millennia. That's enough.
AIt proves one individual had access to psychoactive cannabis. The paper says that.
BSo you're quibbling over sample size instead of the finding.
AI'm not saying it's bad science. I'm saying don't build a lifestyle on one tomb.
BNobody's building a lifestyle. But it explains why every era has its own version of a chill.
AThe top reply says, "The real OGs knew how to chill."
BThat's the internet for you.
ABut the real story is chemical: the compounds in hair mean actual use.
BRight. Not just rope or fabric. This was deliberately psychoactive.
AAnd that matters for archaeology. It changes how we see ritual in ancient Siberia.
BIt also matters for modern policy. The plant isn't new, and neither is the urge.
AHistorical use doesn't settle legal debates. Coffee's old too; we still argue about it.
BCoffee is different. Nobody jailed someone for a cappuccino.
ANo, but they did tax it and riot over it.
BFine, old vices come with old arguments. But the earliest use is still worth knowing.
AIt is. And now the money side: what does a 2,800-year-old stash mean for today's cannabis market?
BProbably nothing. History doesn't make a revenue line.
AExactly. Companies still need permits, demand, and real margins.
BAnd the study doesn't change a single balance sheet.
ASo we can enjoy the history without pretending it's a stock catalyst.
BThat's almost disciplined of you.
AI have my moments.
BSpeaking of balance sheets, the Kobeissi Letter posted a number about capital spending.
AThe account claims nondefense capital goods shipments hit a record eighty-six billion dollars in September.
BThat's a big number, if it holds.
AIt says shipments excluding aircraft jumped from a year earlier. But the Census figure isn't there for me to verify.
BSo you think the number's wrong?
AI think it's unconfirmed. There's no source link to the release.
BThe Kobeissi Letter is usually pretty loud about data. They're not a random account.
ALoud doesn't mean the number cleared my check.
BOh come on. Businesses don't spend heavily on machines unless they're betting on real demand.
AThey spent heavily on fiber in the late nineties, and then a lot of it went dark.
BThat is ancient history. This is data centers with waiting lists.
AWaiting lists are forecasts, not shipments.
BThe shipments are strong!
ASo are the debts that often come with them. That's the part people skip.
BSo you want the capex boom with a permission slip?
AI want the census number in hand before we call it a record.
BFine. We'll say the claim is there, the confirmation isn't.
AAnd if it's confirmed, it's a real sign the industrial side of this economy still has legs.
BStrong nondefense capital goods spending is more than legs. It's a sprint.
AHeavy shipments can also mean heavy borrowing, and that's the piece nobody wants to price in.
BYou can't talk down a boom just because it might end.
AI'm not talking it down. I'm checking the fuel gauge.
BThat's fair. But if the number's real, the trend isn't just AI hype.
AWe'll see. A study from Siberia made it through review. This census claim hasn't.
BSo we've got proof of ancient weed, but not proof of modern equipment.
AThe archaeology is more solid than the data.
BThat's the segment in one sentence.