3 ms·

Ok. So they are not ignorant or stupid, but have a twisted value system? Imagine that you go to a Shakespeare festival but they only recite T. S. Eliot. When y

by szemet 9y ago

Ok. So they are not ignorant or stupid, but have a twisted value system? Imagine that you go to a Shakespeare festival but they only recite T. S. Eliot. When you are disappointed, they say: "Look these are all poems. They are very similar on the surface, but Eliot somehow sounds better to the modern ear. Long live Shakespeare!"

damnyou 9y ago
No, they got the order to make something that looks like GoL. They tried it out, realized it didn't look great, then looked for what most people who don't have a CS degree would consider similar enough and also looked nice. This sort of reasonable compromise happens all the time. In the software industry, if you picked ideological purity over pragmatism you wouldn't be a great engineer. You may have a point if this was a museum celebrating Conway, but it isn't.
- mnsc 9y ago
  If they have a sign somewhere in the train station explaining the panels and how they "celebrate GoL" with an explanation of that algorithm then I would have an issue. But I agree that a static image of, ie a 77P6H1V1 wouldn't be a good representation of how it looks when flying. Static: http://www.conwaylife.com/w/images/8/89/77p6h1v1.png http://www.conwaylife.com/w/images/8/89/77p6h1v1.png Animated: http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/77P6H1V1 http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/77P6H1V1
- szemet 9y ago
  Ok but anyway, either they were ignorant or they simply lied in the press release. Choose freely what shows the project members in a better light! (Neither? ;) My initial quotation was this from the press release: The architects said the aluminium design is derived from John Conway's Game of Life 'cellular automaton', http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/could-cambridge-north-station-owe-13111740 http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/could-ca... You can't protect this with some kind of "we all come from gogol's overcoat", mentality. If it is true then they should have put a Gogol image there! ;)
  - damnyou 9y ago
    The architects probably don't have much control over the marketing. They're each doing their jobs.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Pragmatic choices one can forgive, but that doesn't make it right to pretend that a thing is something it isn't. Ultimately, it seems someone there is simply lying to people. And you may think it's trivial, but it's exactly how - step by step, creative decision by creative decision - we turn each other into idiots with little clue about how reality works. Something that was discussed at length just few hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14460013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14460013 See also: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCoconutEffect http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCoconutEffect. I strongly second the quote that I once found on the Internet: "Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don’t do it to anyone unless you’d also slash their tires".
  - mmirate 9y ago
    (I'm not a lawyer, only a layman.) > "Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don’t do it to anyone unless you’d also slash their tires" Regardless of whether the first sentence is accurate (and indeed it certainly seems accurate), I believe the prescription given in the second sentence is not entirely accurate. Slashing someone's tires is absolutely/always illegal (property damage, or whatever the term is for causing it) ... whereas sabotaging someone's beliefs is illegal iff the "someone" is a court of law or government official, or if the belief-being-sabotaged is about a living person such that a falsehood constitutes slander. As such, sabotage of beliefs is possible in some cases where tire-slashing is not.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      The point here is intent. Don't promote less than maximally accurate beliefs unless you hate someone so much you'd be willing to go and slash their tires. Also, in terms of real-world consequences, sabotaging someone's thinking can be very, very much worse than just breaking their car.
      - 9y ago
- YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
  >> if you picked ideological purity over pragmatism you wouldn't be a great engineer. OOoh, disagree. What yields purity is the clash of a pure vision with the constraints of reality. You can't be really "pragmatic" until you've tried really hard to "do the right thing" and failed and looked for alternatives. If you don't even try, you're not being "pragmatic"; just lazy and boring.
mmjaa 9y ago
The assumption of stupidity, is itself stupid. What if they decided to go with Rule30 instead of GoL, precisely because they knew there'd be geeks out here that would be arguing about these things, infinitely, while a majority of people will just think its a great example of the kind of mathematical complexity that exists in the universe, either way you look at it?
- szemet 9y ago
  So is it a hack? Simply: a Shakespeare festival with T.S. Eliot can get much more press coverage? People like "alternative facts" - both on the believer and the debater side, so give em' what they want for fun and profit? :) That is a fine point, but I simply do not like the value system behind it: to be ignorant or pretend to be ignorant because that's what people like
  - alain94040 9y ago
    <meta> I long for the time where HN will not allow the same contributor to respond infinitely to the same thread. If you couldn't get your point across after 4 messages, maybe it's a sign that you shouldn't try just one more time. You were already given several times the same reasonable explanation. It looks like GoL, and if the architects had said "we used 'rule 30'", absolutely no one would have had a clue what they are talking about. By saying they were inspired by GoL, at least a few people will think 'I vaguely heard of that, it's cool'. It's called pedagogy. Sometimes, being 100% accurate is not helpful.
    - szemet 9y ago
      There were multiple different assumptions why Rule 30 was used, if I think neither is a good reason to use it to tribute Conway, why couldn't I answer them one by one? It is just my opinion - it is not hard science but art, so maybe no one can be right here: you can just choose not to read my comments if you anticipate in advance that you will disagree ;) edit: By the way they not said "inspired" by GoL but that they derived the pattern from it. I admit I'm not a native english speaker but I feel some difference... For you if it is the same, or it is fine "pedagogically" then good for you.

by szemet 9y ago

damnyou 9y ago

No, they got the order to make something that looks like GoL. They tried it out, realized it didn't look great, then looked for what most people who don't have a CS degree would consider similar enough and also looked nice. This sort of reasonable compromise happens all the time. In the software industry, if you picked ideological purity over pragmatism you wouldn't be a great engineer. You may have a point if this was a museum celebrating Conway, but it isn't.

mnsc 9y ago
If they have a sign somewhere in the train station explaining the panels and how they "celebrate GoL" with an explanation of that algorithm then I would have an issue. But I agree that a static image of, ie a 77P6H1V1 wouldn't be a good representation of how it looks when flying. Static: http://www.conwaylife.com/w/images/8/89/77p6h1v1.png http://www.conwaylife.com/w/images/8/89/77p6h1v1.png Animated: http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/77P6H1V1 http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/77P6H1V1
szemet 9y ago
Ok but anyway, either they were ignorant or they simply lied in the press release. Choose freely what shows the project members in a better light! (Neither? ;) My initial quotation was this from the press release: The architects said the aluminium design is derived from John Conway's Game of Life 'cellular automaton', http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/could-cambridge-north-station-owe-13111740 http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/could-ca... You can't protect this with some kind of "we all come from gogol's overcoat", mentality. If it is true then they should have put a Gogol image there! ;)
- damnyou 9y ago
  The architects probably don't have much control over the marketing. They're each doing their jobs.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
Pragmatic choices one can forgive, but that doesn't make it right to pretend that a thing is something it isn't. Ultimately, it seems someone there is simply lying to people. And you may think it's trivial, but it's exactly how - step by step, creative decision by creative decision - we turn each other into idiots with little clue about how reality works. Something that was discussed at length just few hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14460013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14460013 See also: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCoconutEffect http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCoconutEffect. I strongly second the quote that I once found on the Internet: "Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don’t do it to anyone unless you’d also slash their tires".
- mmirate 9y ago
  (I'm not a lawyer, only a layman.) > "Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don’t do it to anyone unless you’d also slash their tires" Regardless of whether the first sentence is accurate (and indeed it certainly seems accurate), I believe the prescription given in the second sentence is not entirely accurate. Slashing someone's tires is absolutely/always illegal (property damage, or whatever the term is for causing it) ... whereas sabotaging someone's beliefs is illegal iff the "someone" is a court of law or government official, or if the belief-being-sabotaged is about a living person such that a falsehood constitutes slander. As such, sabotage of beliefs is possible in some cases where tire-slashing is not.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    The point here is intent. Don't promote less than maximally accurate beliefs unless you hate someone so much you'd be willing to go and slash their tires. Also, in terms of real-world consequences, sabotaging someone's thinking can be very, very much worse than just breaking their car.
    - 9y ago
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
>> if you picked ideological purity over pragmatism you wouldn't be a great engineer. OOoh, disagree. What yields purity is the clash of a pure vision with the constraints of reality. You can't be really "pragmatic" until you've tried really hard to "do the right thing" and failed and looked for alternatives. If you don't even try, you're not being "pragmatic"; just lazy and boring.

mmjaa 9y ago

The assumption of stupidity, is itself stupid. What if they decided to go with Rule30 instead of GoL, precisely because they knew there'd be geeks out here that would be arguing about these things, infinitely, while a majority of people will just think its a great example of the kind of mathematical complexity that exists in the universe, either way you look at it?

szemet 9y ago
So is it a hack? Simply: a Shakespeare festival with T.S. Eliot can get much more press coverage? People like "alternative facts" - both on the believer and the debater side, so give em' what they want for fun and profit? :) That is a fine point, but I simply do not like the value system behind it: to be ignorant or pretend to be ignorant because that's what people like
- alain94040 9y ago
  <meta> I long for the time where HN will not allow the same contributor to respond infinitely to the same thread. If you couldn't get your point across after 4 messages, maybe it's a sign that you shouldn't try just one more time. You were already given several times the same reasonable explanation. It looks like GoL, and if the architects had said "we used 'rule 30'", absolutely no one would have had a clue what they are talking about. By saying they were inspired by GoL, at least a few people will think 'I vaguely heard of that, it's cool'. It's called pedagogy. Sometimes, being 100% accurate is not helpful.
  - szemet 9y ago
    There were multiple different assumptions why Rule 30 was used, if I think neither is a good reason to use it to tribute Conway, why couldn't I answer them one by one? It is just my opinion - it is not hard science but art, so maybe no one can be right here: you can just choose not to read my comments if you anticipate in advance that you will disagree ;) edit: By the way they not said "inspired" by GoL but that they derived the pattern from it. I admit I'm not a native english speaker but I feel some difference... For you if it is the same, or it is fine "pedagogically" then good for you.