That’s actually caused by incorrect rendering: Manchu text should be written vertically, but Wikipedia seems to wrongly render it as horizontal text (at least for me).
On the other hand, the Chinese character 馬 does look very horse-like, and this isn’t a coincidence at all, since the character was designed that way.
The issue here is that the Turing test is getting ever harder - aren't you afraid of the time when you are going to start regularly failing it yourself ?
Furthemore: Did you think about what this means for people with e.g. serious cognitive disability?
Your statement argues for prohibiting them from participating in public discourse wholesale.
In the maximal case where bots are indistinguishable from humans, by definition the odds of failing the Turing test are 50/50. A coin flip per comment. Yeah, I can put up with that.
Realistically, I don't think I will ever start regularly failing it. Go ahead, call it arrogance or hubris or whatever. I've looked at the originality and predictability metrics on a large corpus of my online comments. Let's just say, you won't be replacing me with gpt-3 or similar.
This is diverging from the strict definition of "Turing Test", but I've had the bad luck of having my YouTube comments silently deleted (or worse, shadowbanned), and it's so infuriating (because it seemingly punishes some of 3 ways in which I've tried to make my comments better), that I mostly stopped posting them.
Not to mention that in cases where it results in a direct ban, you better hope that odds are better than 50/50 ! (New users are particularly susceptible.)
This sounds scarily similar to descriptions of brains dealing with incomplete information. Good thing brains aren't keen on rationalizing prior beliefs in the face of new evidence or believing spurious things.
This assumes a normative value of truth being good. You could be ambivalent on the truthfulness of adults, accepting early on that everyone lies some fraction of the time and it's ok for you to do it too. The badness of lying is a societal rather than universal value. Kids lie all the time when they think it will work, so why would they be surprised or offended when it happens?
The real hat trick is to lie to the adults about still believing in Santa so the presents keep on coming. A con so deep the marks think they're the ones pulling the con.
There's two facets of sexual behaviour that are unique to humans. The first is we're the only species that sometimes gets aroused on violence or gets violent on arousal. This is an accident of neurology, both feelings a processed close by. The second is we're the only species that cares if anyone's watching. This observation seems to hold across cultures and time periods.
So the answer is, it was always taboo for kids or anyone else to watch. People may not have always been able to hide it effectively, but they were always at least trying.
> The first is we're the only species that sometimes gets aroused on violence or gets violent on arousal.
Not sure why you think this. Plenty of other animals become violent during marrying seasons, it's often an explicit part of their sexual behavior, at least for males. For example, most horned mammals (deer, buffalos) have violent conquests in the mating season.
I learned it from the Stanford Neuroscience lectures available on YouTube. The ones with Dr. Spolansky. I'm not sure how to discern the subtle difference between "a brain liable to conflate sex and violence" with "violent behaviors tangentially related to sex" either. I'm just trusting the scientist telling me the difference is there and they've studied it.
Even that assumes a fair bit of background knowledge. At that age it would be perfectly logical to suppose that "making a baby" means assembling all the parts together like Ikea furniture.
Sometimes all you have to do is shave the yak and give the wool away, and a nice yak-wool coat will come back to you. :)
Which is to say: sometimes, if you build a low-level library/infrastructure service and release it, someone else will take advantage of it to write the high-level thing you were originally aiming to create.
I'm speaking from experience — my company's DBaaS is built on the premise of just building a really good database domain-model to hold a certain type of large, public-available datasets, for efficient, flexible querying of them; loading those datasets into it; and then giving people access to it (through SQL or various use-case-shaped APIs.) It's a really thorough yak-shave of the DB+ETL layer of what was originally planned to be a higher-level B2C product.
But it turns out I have a pretty unique view of what should be considered "fun", because my yak-shave was everyone else's schlep. Everyone turned out to be dying to get their hands on this thing, because they wanted to spend all their time on a product, rather than getting good data to feed their product. Once we realized that, we stopped trying to build a B2C product at all, and just started selling the yak wool directly.
I never thought about the implication that shaving a yak is the most fun thing you want to do all day. It's so great you would rather shun all your other responsibilities to shave some yaks. I guess I'd better try it.
I really depends on the species of yak. Shave your matted, smelly yak? No thank you! But my silky black yak, absolutely!
I guess the trick is to fall in love with a species of yak that everyone else needs but wants to avoid, so they'll pay you to shave your favorite yaks.
> Obviously, every HNer religiously reads and memorizes PG’s mediocre essays.
Idk, I like PG. I've read the really long-form pieces like "What I've Done", etc., but from what I gather by following his Twitter, he's less and less defined by creative or unique ideas and has turned towards more standard neo-con, gen X silicon valley. More than anything, there is a noticeable lack of emotional intelligence that doesn't hold up to the standards of youth today.
He went to RISD; cool, awesome; he's a brilliant computer scientist; okay, cool. The world is more global now, a lot of people have these Renaissance man-type experiences, and haven't yet made the money that will put a veil over their eyes. A lot of the essays are mediocre. A lot of them are good. But I think it's just less his time in 2022 for what he was trying to do.
That was a good essay, honestly, but just reading the media is enough to tell you that the media is fake. I mean, we've all seen headlines that switch narratives on a dime, just within mainstream media orgs, going only by their own headlines.
But yeah, anyone who knows how social media sites got started with faked engagement shouldn't believe most of the things they see online.
As far as I know, I currently hold the world record score at knife fairy. The game of knife fairy is very simple. You must sneak into your roommates room late at night and slip a knife under their pillow. My current score is 1, so it should be easy to beat. Good luck!
