8 ms·

This is a proof of concept project. The “3 years” is not because of some inherent difficulty, it’s just a typical research project. From the article: > …will

This is a proof of concept project. The “3 years” is not because of some inherent difficulty, it’s just a typical research project. From the article: > …will closely monitor the health and vital statistics of the rhinos over a period of six months, in order to determine the viability of this approach. If this approach is shown to be healthy, I’m sure it could be done much faster.

godelski 2y ago
I often see this (gp's) sentient on HN and it is quite surprising to me given how people here specifically work in technology. Are we not intimately familiar with how one typically starts with small trial groups before we scale, so that we understand the effectiveness and safety? Or are we just "move fast and break things" and leave a mess in our wake with no one spending time to clean anything up. I guess that would explain enshitification. But seriously, S-curves aren't just about how the middle part looks exponential. Both ends are slow. Slow to start and slow to end. When technology B replaces technology A it is (almost) always WORSE than technology A initially. The difference is that its theoretical maximum is higher. Because guess what? In the long run if you stack a bunch of S-curves together, you get an exponential curve. And this is how so much technology has improved, including transistors, solar, batteries, and so on. Sometimes this slow start can be on the order of decades! The Motorola DynaTAC 8000X (1983) wasn't "a failure," it was a step to the IBM Simon (1992) which was a step to the iPhone (2007). So if you're exclusively chasing things that are better *now*, you won't make any progress. You have to invest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level
jjk166 2y ago
> After three years of meticulous and dedicated hard work, the Rhisotope Project at Wits University has successfully inserted low doses of radioisotopes into 20 live rhinoceros. Sounds like there is some inherent difficulty requiring years of meticulous and dedicated hard work to insert doses into 20 live rhinoceroses.
- wanderingstan 2y ago
  There is not enough information to draw that conclusion. Anyone familiar with academia (or even a R&D tech project) can imagine what could take 3 years: ethics board approval, getting permission from the relevant government agencies, finding and hiring local Rhino experts to do the tagging, iterating on design of the drill and placement of isotopes, waiting to find enough rhinos that fit the high-standards demanded for a POC study (extra large, extra healthy, etc), and so on. Or the other way: If it really took three years to tag 20 rhinos with everything working at full speed, don't you think the University and the researches themselves would be the first to realize this is impracticle? Don't you think the journal reviewers would point this out?
  - godelski 2y ago
    > Anyone familiar with academia (or even a R&D tech project) can imagine what could take 3 years Yeah honestly (as an academic; on applied side), when I saw "3 years" my first thought was "wow that's fast." And the second one was "was that just to get approval or is that they've had the device in the rhino 0-3 years and are testing how effective their methods are at staying in and not doing long term damage to the animal?" Because the latter question I can see taking even longer. Though they say a rhino is poached every 20 hrs, so I think there's probably some urgency to the matter where 3 years of testing is good enough. > Don't you think the journal reviewers would point this out? Well... I also don't have faith in journal reviewers so who the fuck knows.
- godelski 2y ago
  > inherent difficulty requiring years of meticulous and dedicated hard work I'm not quite convinced of this. If you watch the video in the article they demonstrate the procedure. Considering that they typically paint the rhino's horns with substances to make them undesirable to poachers, they clearly have the capacity to subdue and restrain the rhino already. And in the video they show a person using a standard hand drill, who drills into the rhino. You can see this at 0:20 and them insert the device at 0:34, where just after they show another horn being drilled into. And they do it several times throughout the video while the narrator explains the process. I suspect that the 3 years is far less due to the actual "installing" it into the rhino (as it looks like once subdued the process is really <15 minutes...) but rather to things like regulation and determining the nuances like "how many isotopes do we need" (clearly more than one), "what types of radiation are more detectable?" "what levels of radiation will sustain and be detectable when transporting horns across international airports?", "Are we causing harm to the rhinos through the radiation?", "does the radiation leech into the rhino's body, such that while the device is safe inside the horn it would be harmful," "how often does that happen, especially given when they fight?", "do the devices stay in place for sustained periods of time?" and so on. There's quite a lot of important questions and many I'm sure that an actual expert in this could ask, but I'm nowhere near a rhino expert (or even enthusiast) [though am experienced with radiation technologies] and I have a bunch of questions that would reasonably take years to adequately answer. It isn't "ah fuck, rhinos are so hard to catch that we're only able to catch one every 2 months" but "okay, we've installed these devices in 5 rhinos, are they still there 3 years later?" and "oh fuck, that type of glue and that drilling depth didn't work because we lost 10 devices in the first year. Time to update our methodology." I find these kinds of questions magnitudes more likely than the explanation that they couldn't catch 20 rhinos and drill into their horns. Especially given what can be seen in the video about how the rhinos act.

godelski 2y ago

I often see this (gp's) sentient on HN and it is quite surprising to me given how people here specifically work in technology. Are we not intimately familiar with how one typically starts with small trial groups before we scale, so that we understand the effectiveness and safety? Or are we just "move fast and break things" and leave a mess in our wake with no one spending time to clean anything up. I guess that would explain enshitification. But seriously, S-curves aren't just about how the middle part looks exponential. Both ends are slow. Slow to start and slow to end. When technology B replaces technology A it is (almost) always WORSE than technology A initially. The difference is that its theoretical maximum is higher. Because guess what? In the long run if you stack a bunch of S-curves together, you get an exponential curve. And this is how so much technology has improved, including transistors, solar, batteries, and so on. Sometimes this slow start can be on the order of decades! The Motorola DynaTAC 8000X (1983) wasn't "a failure," it was a step to the IBM Simon (1992) which was a step to the iPhone (2007). So if you're exclusively chasing things that are better *now*, you won't make any progress. You have to invest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level

jjk166 2y ago

> After three years of meticulous and dedicated hard work, the Rhisotope Project at Wits University has successfully inserted low doses of radioisotopes into 20 live rhinoceros. Sounds like there is some inherent difficulty requiring years of meticulous and dedicated hard work to insert doses into 20 live rhinoceroses.

wanderingstan 2y ago
There is not enough information to draw that conclusion. Anyone familiar with academia (or even a R&D tech project) can imagine what could take 3 years: ethics board approval, getting permission from the relevant government agencies, finding and hiring local Rhino experts to do the tagging, iterating on design of the drill and placement of isotopes, waiting to find enough rhinos that fit the high-standards demanded for a POC study (extra large, extra healthy, etc), and so on. Or the other way: If it really took three years to tag 20 rhinos with everything working at full speed, don't you think the University and the researches themselves would be the first to realize this is impracticle? Don't you think the journal reviewers would point this out?
- godelski 2y ago
  > Anyone familiar with academia (or even a R&D tech project) can imagine what could take 3 years Yeah honestly (as an academic; on applied side), when I saw "3 years" my first thought was "wow that's fast." And the second one was "was that just to get approval or is that they've had the device in the rhino 0-3 years and are testing how effective their methods are at staying in and not doing long term damage to the animal?" Because the latter question I can see taking even longer. Though they say a rhino is poached every 20 hrs, so I think there's probably some urgency to the matter where 3 years of testing is good enough. > Don't you think the journal reviewers would point this out? Well... I also don't have faith in journal reviewers so who the fuck knows.
godelski 2y ago
> inherent difficulty requiring years of meticulous and dedicated hard work I'm not quite convinced of this. If you watch the video in the article they demonstrate the procedure. Considering that they typically paint the rhino's horns with substances to make them undesirable to poachers, they clearly have the capacity to subdue and restrain the rhino already. And in the video they show a person using a standard hand drill, who drills into the rhino. You can see this at 0:20 and them insert the device at 0:34, where just after they show another horn being drilled into. And they do it several times throughout the video while the narrator explains the process. I suspect that the 3 years is far less due to the actual "installing" it into the rhino (as it looks like once subdued the process is really <15 minutes...) but rather to things like regulation and determining the nuances like "how many isotopes do we need" (clearly more than one), "what types of radiation are more detectable?" "what levels of radiation will sustain and be detectable when transporting horns across international airports?", "Are we causing harm to the rhinos through the radiation?", "does the radiation leech into the rhino's body, such that while the device is safe inside the horn it would be harmful," "how often does that happen, especially given when they fight?", "do the devices stay in place for sustained periods of time?" and so on. There's quite a lot of important questions and many I'm sure that an actual expert in this could ask, but I'm nowhere near a rhino expert (or even enthusiast) [though am experienced with radiation technologies] and I have a bunch of questions that would reasonably take years to adequately answer. It isn't "ah fuck, rhinos are so hard to catch that we're only able to catch one every 2 months" but "okay, we've installed these devices in 5 rhinos, are they still there 3 years later?" and "oh fuck, that type of glue and that drilling depth didn't work because we lost 10 devices in the first year. Time to update our methodology." I find these kinds of questions magnitudes more likely than the explanation that they couldn't catch 20 rhinos and drill into their horns. Especially given what can be seen in the video about how the rhinos act.