4 ms·

This article does not belong on HN. It has all the hallmarks of crankery: An early rejection of the entire field of study involved; describes peer review as a t

This article does not belong on HN. It has all the hallmarks of crankery: An early rejection of the entire field of study involved; describes peer review as a tyranny of orthodoxy; Makes assumption that everyone else who has studied this missed something as fundamental as unit conversions; and then engages in a lot of gymnastics and assumptions to justify a pre-decided conclusion.

_Microft 6y ago
I think HN will do fine. Have a look around: people are already discussing knitting instead of the content of the article after someone dug out a video that shows a similiar object being used. Just because the article is wrong does not mean that it cannot serve as starting point for interesting discussions.
- masklinn 6y ago
  > I think HN will do fine. Have a look around: people are already discussing knitting instead of the content of the article after someone dug out a video that shows a similiar object being used. Not "a similar object", that would imply an independent item which happens to share visible features. The video is a modern 3D printed replica of these..
  - _Microft 6y ago
    Technically true but it does not really matter for what my comment was meant to say. This is the second time in two days that someone concentrated on details that were not relevant to the idea presented in the comment. Maybe I should think better about the examples I use and what to include or not include in my comments.
dthul 6y ago
It is indeed a bit unhinged. It seems they just measured the diameter of the holes and then formed a series of integer multiples of these measurements. And some of these multiples happen to coincide with numbers used in specific settings (navigation, astronomy...). How surprising... They fail to explain how those objects would be used in practice according to their theory without modern highly accurate calipers. Not even speaking of the general tone and wild ramblings scattered throughout the article. Edit: The number series are not even correct. For the first series (.875, 1.75, 2.265, 3.5, 4.375, ...) the third number should be 2.625 and not 2.265. It is even bolded.
- weare138 6y ago
  The problem with the measurement device theory is the dodecahedrons found don't seem to be consistent. Speculated uses include as a candlestick holder (wax was found inside two examples); dice; survey instruments for estimating distances to (or sizes of) distant objects;[4] devices for determining the optimal sowing date for winter grain;[5] gauges to calibrate water pipes, army standard bases, a coin measuring device for counterfeit detection. Use as a measuring instrument of any kind seems improbable since the dodecahedra were not standardized and come in many sizes and arrangements of their openings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dodecahedron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dodecahedron
davesmylie 6y ago
The guy is posting on (or owns) celticnz.co.nz - proponents of a somewhat racist theory that the Maori weren't the original inhabitants of New Zealand, but rather it was previously settled by Celts a thousand years earlier. The evidence for this consists mostly of some rocks piled up to make some fences - technology the Maori couldn't hope to replicate until the white man came along and showed them how. This apparently means, amongst other things, that the Treaty of Waitangi (founding document for NZ) is null and void as the Maori are not the original/actual Tangata whenua.

_Microft 6y ago

I think HN will do fine. Have a look around: people are already discussing knitting instead of the content of the article after someone dug out a video that shows a similiar object being used. Just because the article is wrong does not mean that it cannot serve as starting point for interesting discussions.

masklinn 6y ago
> I think HN will do fine. Have a look around: people are already discussing knitting instead of the content of the article after someone dug out a video that shows a similiar object being used. Not "a similar object", that would imply an independent item which happens to share visible features. The video is a modern 3D printed replica of these..
- _Microft 6y ago
  Technically true but it does not really matter for what my comment was meant to say. This is the second time in two days that someone concentrated on details that were not relevant to the idea presented in the comment. Maybe I should think better about the examples I use and what to include or not include in my comments.

dthul 6y ago

It is indeed a bit unhinged. It seems they just measured the diameter of the holes and then formed a series of integer multiples of these measurements. And some of these multiples happen to coincide with numbers used in specific settings (navigation, astronomy...). How surprising... They fail to explain how those objects would be used in practice according to their theory without modern highly accurate calipers. Not even speaking of the general tone and wild ramblings scattered throughout the article. Edit: The number series are not even correct. For the first series (.875, 1.75, 2.265, 3.5, 4.375, ...) the third number should be 2.625 and not 2.265. It is even bolded.

weare138 6y ago
The problem with the measurement device theory is the dodecahedrons found don't seem to be consistent. Speculated uses include as a candlestick holder (wax was found inside two examples); dice; survey instruments for estimating distances to (or sizes of) distant objects;[4] devices for determining the optimal sowing date for winter grain;[5] gauges to calibrate water pipes, army standard bases, a coin measuring device for counterfeit detection. Use as a measuring instrument of any kind seems improbable since the dodecahedra were not standardized and come in many sizes and arrangements of their openings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dodecahedron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dodecahedron

davesmylie 6y ago

The guy is posting on (or owns) celticnz.co.nz - proponents of a somewhat racist theory that the Maori weren't the original inhabitants of New Zealand, but rather it was previously settled by Celts a thousand years earlier. The evidence for this consists mostly of some rocks piled up to make some fences - technology the Maori couldn't hope to replicate until the white man came along and showed them how. This apparently means, amongst other things, that the Treaty of Waitangi (founding document for NZ) is null and void as the Maori are not the original/actual Tangata whenua.