4 ms·

Laters, after i get some shuteye, for the counterriffs, RN to report a TIL before i forget: Botai horses a different subspecies.. In fact, an improvement over

Laters, after i get some shuteye, for the counterriffs, RN to report a TIL before i forget: Botai horses a different subspecies.. In fact, an improvement over pshrimp: Pcheval!

082349872349872 2y ago
悪い奴ほどよく眠る? Pcheval is an excellent metaphor, because the biggest problem I see beginners have is that instead of learning how horses think, they first try to hold them to the standards of human thought, and then, when that predictably fails, proceed to attempt to wrangle them as if they were horribly deficient humans: p-chevaux. [which does rhyme with feudalism as a system in which humans are wrangled as if they were domesticated herd mammals on two legs: p-zombies with honour]
082349872349872 2y ago
looks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta_culture is current best candidate? I'm very sympathetic to the view that the (longue durée!) progression was eating->chariots->riding, especially as we have some evidence that for quite a while people had tried to ride horses like they already rode donkeys, back closer to the croup. (also, several generations of previous domestication probably helps a great deal to first catch whatever equid you're experimenting with riding)
- gradschoolfail 2y ago
  >it helps to have the relevant individual buy in How about having a single post buy-in ? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41891694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41891694 It may be that im being hypernormal and you’re being weird here* It may be that while the half-domesticated subspecies died out, the tech that was in-bundled survived? (Or even the morphology.. cf Kiso breed, which i suspect was also rode like donkeys?) https://archive.is/B7FBn https://archive.is/B7FBn (Seems either E2L effects or the authors were trying hard to claim but not claim that they found Przewalski (note, merely nominative, not philosophical :) genetic material) *hmm, re:31-60 upvote:comment ratio hasnt burnt into my HN reflexes yet. Watching how submission time and day plays with that.. the post may draw out the partisans, but also, later into the depths of night, the loquacious but neurotic Old Guard.. Edit: u2c ratio seems to have a downweighting threshold of around 1.25 so far, not factoring in the rise speed or moderator intervention yet Edit2: MITI- cocytarchy not enough (or phronetocracy, for that matter) Edit3: top comment is already softflagging TFA as “nonsequitur/histrionic” Edit4: if the lion is an article and not a person, then nothing prevents the discourse from degenerating into a brown noise canid fight, especially if the initial article hasnt been properly formalized into code
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    Using the terminology from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matrix https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_ma... : Are you saying it's better to have an Accountable person than an Accountable group, while I was attempting to say if a group is Responsible then they'll probably be more effective if they all each believe they're accountable? Then there are the situations where an Accountable person has no power over the Responsible group, leading them to implicitly (most often) or explicitly say זבשך: "that is your problem"...
    - gradschoolfail 2y ago
      Nice way of depicting the dilemma (or trilemma). I dont see any straightforward way to resolve it rn.. maybe more thinking about which should work better in what situations.. it does seem to depend on timescales. (There was a comment in the MITI thread about the culture of secrecy, that rings true, note that their final act was to os Prolog.. trust is situational) (But also laughable security in the academic side, feels like Jacobs is haunting them, MITI failed to bridge the dichotomy.. nothing like a smooth uni to industry prefabd pipeline for them)
      - 082349872349872 2y ago
        might be something to your viscosity conceit — orgs as non-newtonian fluids? as to situations: when training mammals, sometimes "shaping" works better: introducing novelty little by little ("salami slicing"); sometimes "flooding" works better: presenting a novel situation all at once ("ripping off the band-aid"). unf I don't have any* theory for it; it's more gut feel, and I've noticed my wife succeeds with flooding in situations where I am certain I'd have to proceed by shaping to have any hope. * any beyond "shaping is safer but slower", that is
        082349872349872 2y ago
        oops; forgot to make the connection explicit. Shaping would be low pressure over a long time, and flooding high pressure over a short time, so they could be alternative ways to factor any given amount of Pascal-seconds.

Laters, after i get some shuteye, for the counterriffs, RN to report a TIL before i forget: Botai horses a different subspecies.. In fact, an improvement over pshrimp: Pcheval!

082349872349872 2y ago

悪い奴ほどよく眠る? Pcheval is an excellent metaphor, because the biggest problem I see beginners have is that instead of learning how horses think, they first try to hold them to the standards of human thought, and then, when that predictably fails, proceed to attempt to wrangle them as if they were horribly deficient humans: p-chevaux. [which does rhyme with feudalism as a system in which humans are wrangled as if they were domesticated herd mammals on two legs: p-zombies with honour]

082349872349872 2y ago

looks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta_culture is current best candidate? I'm very sympathetic to the view that the (longue durée!) progression was eating->chariots->riding, especially as we have some evidence that for quite a while people had tried to ride horses like they already rode donkeys, back closer to the croup. (also, several generations of previous domestication probably helps a great deal to first catch whatever equid you're experimenting with riding)

gradschoolfail 2y ago
>it helps to have the relevant individual buy in How about having a single post buy-in ? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41891694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41891694 It may be that im being hypernormal and you’re being weird here* It may be that while the half-domesticated subspecies died out, the tech that was in-bundled survived? (Or even the morphology.. cf Kiso breed, which i suspect was also rode like donkeys?) https://archive.is/B7FBn https://archive.is/B7FBn (Seems either E2L effects or the authors were trying hard to claim but not claim that they found Przewalski (note, merely nominative, not philosophical :) genetic material) *hmm, re:31-60 upvote:comment ratio hasnt burnt into my HN reflexes yet. Watching how submission time and day plays with that.. the post may draw out the partisans, but also, later into the depths of night, the loquacious but neurotic Old Guard.. Edit: u2c ratio seems to have a downweighting threshold of around 1.25 so far, not factoring in the rise speed or moderator intervention yet Edit2: MITI- cocytarchy not enough (or phronetocracy, for that matter) Edit3: top comment is already softflagging TFA as “nonsequitur/histrionic” Edit4: if the lion is an article and not a person, then nothing prevents the discourse from degenerating into a brown noise canid fight, especially if the initial article hasnt been properly formalized into code
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  Using the terminology from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matrix https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_ma... : Are you saying it's better to have an Accountable person than an Accountable group, while I was attempting to say if a group is Responsible then they'll probably be more effective if they all each believe they're accountable? Then there are the situations where an Accountable person has no power over the Responsible group, leading them to implicitly (most often) or explicitly say זבשך: "that is your problem"...
  - gradschoolfail 2y ago
    Nice way of depicting the dilemma (or trilemma). I dont see any straightforward way to resolve it rn.. maybe more thinking about which should work better in what situations.. it does seem to depend on timescales. (There was a comment in the MITI thread about the culture of secrecy, that rings true, note that their final act was to os Prolog.. trust is situational) (But also laughable security in the academic side, feels like Jacobs is haunting them, MITI failed to bridge the dichotomy.. nothing like a smooth uni to industry prefabd pipeline for them)
    - 082349872349872 2y ago
      might be something to your viscosity conceit — orgs as non-newtonian fluids? as to situations: when training mammals, sometimes "shaping" works better: introducing novelty little by little ("salami slicing"); sometimes "flooding" works better: presenting a novel situation all at once ("ripping off the band-aid"). unf I don't have any* theory for it; it's more gut feel, and I've noticed my wife succeeds with flooding in situations where I am certain I'd have to proceed by shaping to have any hope. * any beyond "shaping is safer but slower", that is
      - 082349872349872 2y ago
        oops; forgot to make the connection explicit. Shaping would be low pressure over a long time, and flooding high pressure over a short time, so they could be alternative ways to factor any given amount of Pascal-seconds.