[HN Gopher] Native Americans had dice 12k years ago
___________________________________________________________________
Native Americans had dice 12k years ago
Author : delichon
Score : 129 points
Date : 2026-04-04 00:59 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nbcnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nbcnews.com)
| Validark wrote:
| > The dice are almost always two-sided
|
| Don't train your AI on that
| gus_massa wrote:
| Can we call it a D2? I'd call it a non-monetary-gaming-fair-
| coin, but it's hard to reduce it to a 4 letter word like "coin"
| or "dice" that most people would understand.
| moi2388 wrote:
| Chip
| deafpolygon wrote:
| That's gonna trigger some gambling addicts.
| gus_massa wrote:
| IIUC "chip" is just a token that represent money, they are
| not necessary "fair", they are not good to be tossed.
|
| I imagine a parallel world where chips are shaped like
| empty cones, so they can pilled but they are very bad as a
| D2. (Perhaps a world where chips are shaped like cubes is
| more realistic, also bad as D2.)
| dfxm12 wrote:
| Yes, but I'd prefer some more specificity to the shape. D2
| can be coin shaped, but don't have to be. There are some
| diverse shapes in the image of the article.
| gus_massa wrote:
| I found this in Google, IIUC it's a ~1900 version or something
| similar enough.
|
| https://americanindian.si.edu/collections-search/object/NMAI...
| srean wrote:
| Very interesting. The earliest example of the familiar cube
| shaped dice I know if is from Indus valley civilisation from
| around 2600 BC, closely followed by Mesopotamian dice.
|
| This discovery pushes the history of dice from 5K years to 12K
| years.
|
| These aren't quite as symmetric. I guess humans had to wait
| longer to discover some of the platonic solids.
|
| This golden icosahedron of orders of magnitude more recent
| vintage is quite a beauty
|
| https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333949003_A_Numbere...
| kstenerud wrote:
| > Nonetheless, he said, his research offers evidence that Native
| Americans were doing complex counting and were likely to have
| been the first humans to contemplate concepts like the law of
| large numbers, a mathematics concept that describes how a random
| sample will trend toward an equal distribution over time.
|
| That's a stretch. Most early "gambling" was a way of putting the
| choice to the gods.
| calf wrote:
| If his evidence of complex counting is convincing, then it's
| not implausible to me that they soon also had some rudimentary
| understanding of e.g. coin flip frequencies.
| kqr wrote:
| That's not how pre-statistical reasoning works. We have known
| for a long time that coins tend to land on either side around
| half the time. But before statistics, the outcome of any
| individual coin toss was considered "not uncertain, merely
| unknown".
|
| Before you toss the coin, God has determined with full
| certainty on which side it will land based on everything
| riding on that coin toss and all the third-order
| consequences, in His infinite wisdom. It cannot land on any
| side other than the preordained. The way you find God's will
| is to flip the coin.
|
| To the pre-statistical brain it was unthinkable (and probably
| blasphemeous) to perform any sort of expected value
| calculation on this.
|
| We know today that the frequency is useful for making
| decisions around the individual throws. Back then, that
| connection just wasn't there. Each throw was considered its
| own unique event.
|
| (We can still see this in e.g. statistically illiterate fans
| of football. Penalty kicks are a relatively stable random
| process -- basically a weighted coin toss. Yet you'll see
| fans claim each penalty kick is a unique event completely
| disconnected from the long-run frequency.)
|
| Statistics is a very young invention. As far as we know, it
| didn't exist in meaningful form anywhere on Earth until the
| 1600s. (However, if it existed in the Americas earlier than
| that, that would explain why it suddenly popped up in Europe
| in the 1600s...)
|
| ----
|
| Important edit: What I know about this comes mostly from
| Weisberg's _Willful Ignorance_ as well as _A World of Chance_
| by Brenner, Brenner, and Brown. These authors ' research is
| based mostly on European written sources, meaning the
| emphasis is on how Europeans used to think about this.
|
| It's possible different conceptualisations of probability
| existed elsewhere. It's possible even fully-fledged
| statistical reasoning existed, although it seems unlikely
| because it is the sort of thing that relies heavily on
| written records, and those would come up in research. But
| it's possible! That's what I meant by the last parenthetical
| - maybe Europeans didn't invent it at all, but were merely
| inspired by existing American practice.
| mkl wrote:
| That sounds like one very narrow cultural perspective.
| kqr wrote:
| Yes, I meant to mention that but forgot in my eagerness
| to respond. Sorry and thanks for clarifying!
| peyton wrote:
| From TFA:
|
| > No prehistoric dice have ever been discovered in the
| eastern part of North America.
|
| Come on, you don't really think modern statistics
| might've come about from Europeans taking inspiration in
| the gambling practices of nomadic peoples in remote
| southwestern parts of North America. No need to pay lip
| service to every scold.
| Pay08 wrote:
| I don't, when the much more likely answer is that it came
| from the more than a millenia old gambling practices of
| Europe.
| vintermann wrote:
| Fatalism is widespread, but not nearly universal enough
| that we can say it was the norm 15000 years ago.
|
| For that matter, people who _were_ pretty fatalist were
| still capable of using chance for purposes of fairness.
| The democrats in ancient Athens come to mind. I 'm also
| pretty sure the (Christian) apostles' use of chance was
| also more about avoiding a human making the decision,
| than about divination.
| kstenerud wrote:
| Are you quite sure of that? Historians would beg to
| differ.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleromancy
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyche
| vintermann wrote:
| I'm not saying divination isn't a thing, I'm saying there
| are examples of use of chance where it doesn't seem like
| divination.
|
| Athenians selected through sortition didn't seem to act
| much like they believed they were chosen by the gods, and
| they defended their institutions mainly as wisdom, not as
| revelation.
|
| And the apostles, being Jews, had a big taboo about using
| chance to determine God's will, but apparently not
| against using chance to fill vacancies.
| kstenerud wrote:
| That's actually the opposite of the historical evidence.
|
| https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2
| 010...
|
| https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%201
| 6%3...
|
| https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%20
| 16%...
| vintermann wrote:
| There are bible passages suggesting the outcome of lots
| is God's will, and there are passages condemning
| divination. You can find them from the same links you
| posted above. But at the time of the apostles, it was a
| no-no to use chance to figure out God's will.
|
| Please don't just shake links out of your sleeve, and
| talk to me instead. Do _you_ think the Athenians acted
| like they were chosen by the gods when their number came
| up?
|
| Don't _you_ see a difference between the situations where
| chance could clearly have been used simply as a mechanism
| for fairness / avoiding a biased choice, and things like
| reading the movement of the birds or interpreting the
| shape of molten lead thrown into water?
|
| Even in things like the goat choice in the bible you link
| above, I think it may be more about fairness than
| divination. Because as far as I know, the priests
| actually got to eat the sacrificial goat, but not the
| scapegoat they chased into the wild. So was it _really_
| about divining which goat God hated more, or was it maybe
| about "don't cheat by keeping the juicy goat for
| yourselves and chasing away the mangy one!"?
| odyssey7 wrote:
| Yes, but so too is a modern western framing of these
| "dice" as "gambling" objects.
|
| And also, the esteem in recognizing them as prefiguring a
| skill or system of thought that fund managers and FDA
| panels use today. In a roundabout way, it praises our own
| society's systems by recognizing an ancient civilization
| for potentially having discovered some of their
| mathematical preliminaries.
| DaedalusII wrote:
| yeah man these boys were definitely doing bayesian
| probability and gaussian distributions to operate their
| sea shell based barter economy
| netcan wrote:
| Anytime you bring God into it... the concept of truth has
| the option of getting very abstract.
|
| It's pretty common, for example, to believe that God is on
| our side and we will win the war or somesuch. Actually
| walking onto a battlefield with a literal expectation of
| divine intervention... much less as common. Pious generals
| still believe in tactics, steel and suchlike. Not always...
| but usually.
|
| European pre-modern writers were mostly very pious. The
| works preserved are likewise very pious. Greek philosophers
| were often closer to atheists than later Christians.
| calf wrote:
| That has barely to do with my specific point. The
| researcher in TFA said _if_ they were doing complex
| counting _then_ blah blah blah.
|
| The general insight is that complex counting would force
| some kind of Bayesian or probabilistic reasoning even one
| that is informal, intuitive, rudimentary or partly
| incorrect. Whereas a theory of divining stones usage would
| have very little actual complex counting involved, maybe
| they had the tribal equivalent of fortune slips, and so
| they would not be cognitively challenged to reason about
| dice. What constitutes complex counting, I don't know, ask
| the researcher. But IMO it's not out realm of impossibility
| and time and again we have discovered the old ones of Homo
| sapiens were more cognitively/intellectually sophisticated
| than these kinds of scientists assumed earlier. I'm not
| wedded to this, it would be hard to prove, especially as a
| hypothesis involving human cognitive constraints/evolution,
| but I won't dismiss it as completely implausible either. It
| is an interesting if-then "archaeological cognitive
| science" argument, that's all.
| tech_ken wrote:
| > Statistics is a very young invention. As far as we know,
| it didn't exist in meaningful form anywhere on Earth until
| the 1600s. (However, if it existed in the Americas earlier
| than that, that would explain why it suddenly popped up in
| Europe in the 1600s...)
|
| > It's possible different conceptualisations of probability
| existed elsewhere.
|
| Rudimentary sampling theory 100% predates 17th century
| Europe: https://ckraju.net/wordpress_F/?p=55
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _it 's not implausible to me that they soon also had some
| rudimentary understanding of e.g. coin flip frequencies_
|
| We can actually tell from their dice that they don't.
|
| I believe in the book _Against the Gods_ the author described
| ancient dice being--mostly--uneven. (One exception, I
| believe, was ancient Egypt.) The thinking was a weird-looking
| dice looks the most intuitively random. It wasn't until
| later, when the average gambler started statistically
| reasoning, that standardized dice became common.
|
| These dice are highly non-standard. In their own way, their
| similarity to other cultures of antiquities' senses of
| randomness is kind of beautiful.
| kqr wrote:
| It's not entirely crazy. I believe Thorp described this
| about roulette wheels. If they had no imperfection at all,
| it would be computationally laborious but not unthinkable
| to compute the result from the initial positions and
| velocities. In order to be unpredictable, roulette wheels
| _need_ to have imperfections. Those very same
| imperfections, of course, lead to some statistical
| regularities.
|
| Edit: It wasn't quite that, but very nearly: start reading
| paragraph 5 in http://www.edwardothorp.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2016/11/Physi...
|
| In the next article in the series, he explains that in
| practice, roulette wheels are often tilted and that can be
| used to gain a further advantage:
| http://www.edwardothorp.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2016/11/Physi...
| blitzar wrote:
| If you are the house you probably want to go around every
| so often and give the wheel a little bump to reset the
| entropy seed for the day.
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| Anecdotally I was on a streak and the dealer was actively
| concentrating and focusing to get my number again. She
| managed to get it 4 out of 5 spins. Now she would
| obviously never admit to this, but I'm positive that she
| was able to, on this specific wheel, land on the number
| she wanted.
|
| I think we would've kept going but she rotated off and I
| cashed out.
|
| Edit: Thorp and Shannon! What a duo. Great articles,
| thanks for sharing.
| bluGill wrote:
| The house wants you to think that anyway. If it is
| possible or not..
|
| The house wants people to win money and tell their
| friends, and every "winning" strategy is good for them -
| so long as in the end the house makes money.
| xyzzy_plugh wrote:
| I mean, yes, but also no. The house wants you to lose
| money, but win just enough to think you have a chance.
| There's a reason those zeroes are on the board.
|
| There's no deep strategy in Roulette, really. I play for
| fun, and the money I put on the table is already spent.
|
| The anecdote was: I wouldn't have seriously believed that
| you could reliably manipulate the spin outcome, and as an
| observer, that's true. I didn't believe the dealer could
| either, but after seeing this dealer pull it off I
| definitely see the potential for manipulation. It was
| almost like she was showing off that _she could_. And
| besides, she earned a hefty tip.
| bluGill wrote:
| > The house wants you to lose money, but win just enough
| to think you have a chance
|
| The house wants to make money overall. They know that
| individuals who make money tend to tell more friends than
| those who lose money - free advertising - so they want
| some people to make money. The total needs to be the
| average person loses money, but they need some
| individuals to make money.
|
| On the small stakes systems they may even like it when
| they lose money like that - the dealer makes a big tip,
| and it encourages people (or their friends) to move to a
| higher stakes bet where they will lose more. They have to
| be careful about the law (which probably doesn't allow
| that manipulation if possible, even if it isn't in their
| favor), but again individuals with a story to tell are
| worth a lot more than than the money they lose on that
| story.
| JuniperMesos wrote:
| Maybe this is because dice were originally made from the
| bones of animals like sheep, which are inherently
| irregular.
| Pay08 wrote:
| I was going to ask how we know if the dice are
| intentionally uneven, as opposed to it being a result of
| technological, cost, or time constraints.
| calf wrote:
| I don't see the point of being confident about this in
| either direction. I will not assert for certain but (or,
| IF) they had dice for 12000 years (12,000!) and to be so
| certain they didn't know anything at all on an intuitive
| level is a bit strong a position to take, I don't see that
| as a safe null/default hypothesis.
|
| I had also said "..., THEN it's not implausible" so I don't
| love how you quoted a strawman in the first place.
| sorokod wrote:
| ...and, is it?
|
| https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-
| antiquity/a...
| calf wrote:
| It doesn't matter. The first point raised was
| essentially"well the dice were just part of a belief system
| about divinity so they could not have been more
| sophisticated than that" and then I said that the article's
| logical reasoning is actually more interesting than that
| kind of kneejerk dismissal. Just that one line of thought
| mentioned in the article is intrinsically interesting,
| because it posits a kind of forcing argument, that if there
| is evidence for complexity behavior then there is evidence
| for complex thought required of it. That is an interesting
| cognitive science kind of argument, different than a flat
| argument of the type "oh their belief system would have
| prevented them from developing it".
| anthk wrote:
| People used to play board games to gamble/predict, for sure;
| but they also liked a moneyless/careless play.
| cassepipe wrote:
| > the intellectual aspects of native Native American cultures
| have really been sidelined, if not consciously suppressed by
| colonial powers
|
| Or maybe intellectual refers to someone a position in a society
| that sufficiently is well-off to be able to support some guy
| not having to provide work for collective survival and who can
| spend time trying to formalize abstract thinking for which
| _writing_ would help with (which north americans natives did
| not have)
|
| It's ok, it can be an interesting culture worthy of being
| studied, and of course they weren't dummies, without trying to
| pretend that north american natives were "contemplating
| concepts like the law of large numbers" without writing device
| or support nor some kind of alphabet, come on
|
| Yes colonization is awful and yes the natives were genocided
| but that doesn't mean that everyone was on its way too landing
| on the moon had they not been suppressed both physically and
| culturally. The path to civilization only gets narrower and the
| people who get to contribute meaningfully fewer and fewer.
| superbyte wrote:
| don't worry, professional researchers studying this stuff for
| real, a helpful hn commenter is on the way!
| wredcoll wrote:
| Nobody is perfect, even "professionals" and I think there's
| a reasonable difference between "I, a novice, am skeptical
| of your conclusions" and "I, a novice, have come up with an
| entirely new theory".
| cassepipe wrote:
| This, unironically
|
| I think you are being downvoted because people thought you
| were being ironic but I am not sure you were.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Writing might be helpful for intellectuals, but it's
| certainly not _necessary_. Socrates has a whole argument
| about written argumentation being a sign of a weak mind.
|
| Moreover, we _have_ records from some of these precolonial
| intellectual traditions in the Americas. The nahua genre of
| _huehuetlatolli_ is an excellent example in many ways. The
| selectively preserved bits we have resemble something closer
| to Confucianism than mathematics, but keep in mind we have a
| narrow selection from a single genre in a much wider
| landscape.
|
| In what's now US territory, proto-writing systems (emoji are
| a modern example of these) existed. There were also
| intellectual traditions associated with them, particularly
| among southwestern groups like the Puebloans. Those are
| relatively closed to academics for a variety of historical
| reasons and consequently understudied, but we know they
| existed.
| cassepipe wrote:
| So first Socrates had _opinions_ but is certainty not an
| authority on the development of humanity through time. Also
| ironically we know what he supposedly said and are still
| talking about it because his words have been written down.
|
| They have been written down because there was in Athenian
| society enough surplus/inequality for those guys to hang
| out and talk and be influencers (while their wives and
| slaves were doing all the hard work) and produce some kind
| of paper/parchment.
|
| Just like the Aztec _empire_ (from whom we have the
| huehuetlatolli) who also had production surplus thus social
| classes thus the leisure of an intellectual life.
|
| Both have benefited from 10000 years of settled human
| history painstakingly modifying the landscape to create
| that surplus and yet they still didn't have algebra so
| there's no shot this collection of tribes 12000 were
| conceptualizing the law of large numbers or whatnot.
|
| Maybe I overreacted but I feel like this kind of blurb in
| article sounds good but is is completely misleading in that
| it crushes developmental history into a simple narrative to
| pander to a crowd of people lacking curiosity when it goes
| beyond knowing that colonialism is bad
|
| So sorry I may have been talking past you to my make point
| but thank for your substantiated comment, that was
| interesting information
| tech_ken wrote:
| Regardless of the cosmological framing of the practice, people
| throughout history have devoted substantial effort to mapping
| the dynamics of probabilistic objects. For example, Sikidy is a
| randomized tool used for 'fortune telling' by some indigenous
| groups in Madagascar, where a 'random seed state' (using modern
| terminology) is used to deterministically generate a larger
| final state which provides the reading
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikidy). Practitioners of Sikidy
| really care about understanding the dynamics of the system, for
| example they implemented some algorithmic checks which can be
| applied to the final state to confirm that it was generated
| properly.
|
| I'm not saying that this guarantees that early native Americans
| derived the law of large numbers or whatever, but I don't think
| it's sound reasoning to assume that people wouldn't study the
| mathematical behavior of a random system just because it's "the
| hand of God".
| sublinear wrote:
| > "It's an incredibly exciting finding, because for so long, the
| intellectual aspects of native Native American cultures have
| really been sidelined, if not consciously suppressed by colonial
| powers," Wiener said.
|
| Really? That's what this is motivated by? Plain old boring
| science and more objective documentation of artifacts aren't good
| enough reasons?
|
| How is anything being suppressed if there are a ton of random
| stories constantly being published about Native Americans
| apparently being secret geniuses with magical powers?
|
| This is borderline racist. NBC has really gone down the shitter.
|
| > Madden left legal practice in 2017 and started independent
| research on the Olmec civilization, an early Mesoamerican
| population, before he began a master's program in archaeology --
| his "original love" -- in 2022.
|
| At least they're honest about who they're interviewing and leave
| it up to the reader to decide credibility?
| HK-NC wrote:
| Im not American, so my knowledge on the natives, or Indians as
| I'm told they prefer to call themselves, was based on media
| made by these colonial powers. I started reading into the
| subject recently and I find that the only thing the colonial
| powers seem to miss out is the brutal treatment of women, the
| gang rapes and the torture. Interestingly enough, the powers
| that be in New York that never had dealings with the Indians
| face to face had the same picture of peace loving land hippies
| in mind when telling southerners how to negotiate with them.
| The comanche specifically were some of the most impressive and
| frightening people I've ever read about.
| bluGill wrote:
| The first problem with what you know: there were many
| different tribes and they didn't share common culture. They
| did have some trade, but there was no unified culture.
|
| Second problem: diseases (smallpox is the best known) spread
| much faster than the Europeans and so most of what we they
| could see was influenced by large numbers of dead people in
| the previous generation that wasn't recovered from. It is a
| lot easier to be peaceful with your neighbors when there are
| no population pressures (that is everyone can eat enough on
| the land you have). Likewise it is easier to give away
| "stuff" when you have a lot of extras from older generations
| that nobody needs.
|
| Third, guns and horses allowed for ways to life that were not
| possible before. The great nomadic horse tribes - that was
| clearly observed, but the way of life depends on things the
| Europeans brought not long before. It is really hard to know
| what the culture was like before the horse arrived. There is
| reason to suspect that those great nomadic tribes where
| heading to a population collapse of the bison herds because
| the horse and guns enabled over hunting (but of course
| Europeans arrived before that could happen, and did their own
| number on the herds).
| Pay08 wrote:
| This is becoming more and more common. I recently read an
| article about the male genetic material's influence on
| pregnancy complications and it included a similar blurb about
| women's rights and colonialism (don't ask me how that last one
| is related). Like, just state the findings and your conclusions
| from them. No need to attempt to save the world.
| throwawaypath wrote:
| >it included a similar blurb about women's rights and
| colonialism
|
| Obligatory mantras, like Muslims repeating the takbir.
| mbauman wrote:
| That's quite amusing; you don't see the connection between
| "magical powers" and sidelining real intellectual achievements?
|
| Also, Madden is not a master's student anymore. He's a 62 year
| old doctoral candidate and the lead author on this study.
| sublinear wrote:
| I do see the connection. That was my point. We went from
| overt racism (by the oppressors alleged by NBC) to covert
| racism (by NBC themselves). We could have done without the
| virtue signaling.
|
| I also say "alleged" because in most cases those oppressors
| are the other half of the family tree for the people we have
| alive today we're calling some particular outgroup. News
| organizations like NBC used to treat these topics with more
| care to avoid "othering" and full awareness that modern
| subjects are a mixed people with a ton of nuance. This is the
| USA, for crying out loud.
|
| Now if you really want your "woosh", let's consider the
| stereotype of native americans owning casinos, and this
| article is about their ancient dice. :-)
| mbauman wrote:
| I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying that your "ton of
| random stories constantly being published about Native
| Americans apparently being secret geniuses with magical
| powers" are _themselves_ evidence of exactly the sort of
| unserious reporting that the researcher ( _NOT_ NBC)
| claims; they sideline and obscure the realities of the
| intellectual aspects.
| sublinear wrote:
| I don't know if you're aware how editors choose what and
| how to publish, or how much of the journalist's writing
| gets thrown out.
|
| NBC decided what to assign to the journalist, decided the
| goals the editor should have in mind, approved the
| editor's decisions, and ultimately let it publish.
|
| When they push these stories and present them this way,
| the archaeologist is by far the least to blame even if I
| disagree with their words.
|
| I'm already aware of the crazy reasons people do the work
| they love. It's just how the world goes 'round. NBC could
| have left that crap out along with the other stuff they
| cut.
|
| I'm very confident the interview was much longer. Neither
| the interviewees nor journalists have any idea how the
| story will be spun. Some of these interviews drag on for
| so long it's practically interrogation tactics to see
| what shakes out.
|
| It is indeed NBC's decision to focus on the "dice" out of
| all the artifacts shown. It is NBC's decision to choose
| the most sensational quotes to run with. It is NBC's
| decision to go looking for the most colorful people to
| interview and tap them whenever they want to push a
| theme.
| fzeroracer wrote:
| Calling something 'virtue signalling' in 2026 is in itself
| a form of virtue signalling as to what kind of beliefs you
| hold. Frankly I think we could all do without those things
| breathlessly clogging up the page because people want to
| desperately overreach into what someone said for the sake
| of making an inane point.
| reaperducer wrote:
| This is NBC re-hashing a Wall Street Jornal story from a week
| ago:
|
| https://www.wsj.com/science/dice-research-humans-gambling-e6...
| jl6 wrote:
| How do we know these were dice rather than some other type of
| tool? I can imagine all kinds of uses for carefully shaped hard
| bone fragments, and the picture in the article shows objects that
| seem like they might be almost anything.
| tantalor wrote:
| > They're carefully shaped to produce random outcomes and
| marked or colored to indicate different sides.
| jl6 wrote:
| That's not terribly definitive evidence, considering that a
| great many tools will produce random outcomes when flipped
| and will have just as much color differentiation as the
| objects on display here.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Yeah, coins have distinct faces and can be flipped to
| generate random numbers.
| bhewes wrote:
| Ah so Vegas is there for a reason.
| dismalaf wrote:
| The word dice is doing a lot of heavy lifting here...
|
| These are 2 sided fragments that, as the most charitable
| interpretation possible, might look like objects used for
| divination.
| stevenalowe wrote:
| Chances are good that dice are as old as we are
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-04-08 23:01 UTC)