3 ms·

> London's population was a lot more than 10k in the 12th century Yea, how are we supposed to trust the authors of this article on qualitative judgement calls

> London's population was a lot more than 10k in the 12th century Yea, how are we supposed to trust the authors of this article on qualitative judgement calls when they are so misleading about basic quantitative stuff. According to Wikipedia, London was 60k people by 100 AD, dropped to 15k around 1100 AD, but then was back to 80k by 1300 AD, which are all very pre-industrious times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londinium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londinium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_and_Medieval_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_and_Medieval_London Compare this to the article: > Dr. Timothy Pauketat, an archeologist who wrote a book about Cahokia, believes the city was home to over 10,000 people in 1250, with more Cahokians living on the surrounding farmland. If that’s the case, Cahokia was larger than London. So, the author cherrypicks an expert who says the population Cahokia at its peak may possibly have been almost as big as London was at a local minimum over a 2,000 year history.

dredmorbius 10y ago
It's a common trope, though that doesn't entirely excuse it. The claim is technically accurate (the best kind of accurate, as a friend put it). But it also borrows off an interpretation of London as a megacity of millions of inhabitants. The simple addition of "at the time" would make the claim so much more informative and accurate. In thinking of common vs. technical interpretations of words, there was the case of an article on HN a few weeks back titled "Igloos that don't melt". It turned out the "igloo" wouldn't melt (not without fire at any rate) ... because it was made from plastic. Someone tried defending this usage on the basis that the Inuit word "iglu" simply means "house". But the English usage, and the clear intent of the headline, convey the image of a domed structure built from blocks of carved snow. The technique in general is a cheap shot and as you note weakens rather than strengthens an author's credibility. There was a similar

dredmorbius 10y ago

It's a common trope, though that doesn't entirely excuse it. The claim is technically accurate (the best kind of accurate, as a friend put it). But it also borrows off an interpretation of London as a megacity of millions of inhabitants. The simple addition of "at the time" would make the claim so much more informative and accurate. In thinking of common vs. technical interpretations of words, there was the case of an article on HN a few weeks back titled "Igloos that don't melt". It turned out the "igloo" wouldn't melt (not without fire at any rate) ... because it was made from plastic. Someone tried defending this usage on the basis that the Inuit word "iglu" simply means "house". But the English usage, and the clear intent of the headline, convey the image of a domed structure built from blocks of carved snow. The technique in general is a cheap shot and as you note weakens rather than strengthens an author's credibility. There was a similar