The later half of the rule also scales the estimate up by an order of magnitude, would imply tasks taking 30x longer. Guess that makes you quite optimal at those tasks.
I think you've misread it, though this is my first time encountering these laws so do correct me. It says to multiply the time by 3x and the costs by 10x
I could be wrong because I haven't read unabridged versions of either. My sense is we tend to relate what was described abstractly with advancements we see around us.
For e.g. with flying vehicles in ancient epics I'm skeptical that they describe in any detail how flight was achieved besides magic or divine power.
> My sense is we tend to relate what was described abstractly with advancements we see around us.
How is the mention of ""vaayu yaan" abstract? Can we similarly say that to the mention of present day "aeroplane" abstract and dismiss it as non-existent?
> For e.g. with flying vehicles in ancient epics I'm skeptical that they describe in any detail how flight was achieved besides magic or divine power.
In present day writings(fiction or otherwise) when we mention flights or aeroplane, we don't mention every nut and bolt of the aeroplane. So saying the ancient text did not give much details is unfair to those texts. As I mentioned in my original post, these advance ideas were mentioned in a matter-of-fact way as if it is not a novelty, similar to how we now mention air travel or space flights.
> were mentioned in a matter-of-fact way as if it is not a novelty
You've said this twice now. In persuasive writing, once you state a fact, you must draw a conclusion, clearly. Please, draw for me your conclusion.
Since we're asynchronous, it appears that the conclusion you're drawing is that these texts refer to real things that actually existed: heavier than air flight, spaceflight, test-tube babies, etc. Since we know where (fairly precisely) these things took place, we should have significant archaeological evidence for them. Could you point me to the physical proof of these? Because, I feel like these objects would've come up in my readings, before.
If you're not drawing the conclusion they actually existed, what conclusion are you drawing?
> it appears that the conclusion you're drawing is that these texts refer to real things that actually existed
Please read the last line of my original post.
> If you're not drawing the conclusion they actually existed, what conclusion are you drawing?
I am saying, that the description given in the text is too specific for it to be dismissed right away. And even if it is hokum, then the sheer level of imagination of ancient civilisation to mention flying vehicles, missiles, teleportation, body preservation and test-tube baby is appreciable. It will be good to know what type of civilisation was that that was able to imagine these advance concepts.
> Since we know where (fairly precisely) these things took place, we should have significant archaeological evidence for them.
Sure, I am all for scientific evidence. In fact I would like to see that it is either supported or refuted with evidence. From some of the comments it looks like for rejecting a hypothesis no evidence is required, but for supporting it evidence is demanded. If there is no evidence to either support or refute it, then the matter should be inconclusive rather than concluding it either way.
Off the top of my head "flying vehicles" and "body preservation" are well-attested in many other cultures (Ancient Egypt; Mayans) that I'm 100% certain had neither. You are for sure reading too much into this.
> And even if it is hokum
I 99% believe that you think these things are real; I don't know if you're a von Danikenite, but you sure talk like one.
> If there is no evidence to either support or refute it
There is evidence that there's no evidence: we've been digging holes all over the world for centuries, looking for raw materials -- quadruply so, very recently, in the Indian subcontinent. If there was a civilization capable of supporting space-age technology, we'd've found it by now.
The conclusion is that there were ancient civilizations that we don’t currently have archeological evidence for. If you know anything about archeological research in India, you know that it is far, far from comprehensive.
Here’s a small example: Shiva is often represented smoking a chillum. Yet, the accepted understanding is that smoking was developed in the Americas and no smoking in the old world took place pre-1492. It would therefore be a major discovery to establish that a chillum was precolumbian. There simply isn’t a research base (no funding, no training) to investigate even simple questions like this.
Might we find evidence of, say, metallurgy that is 10,000 years old in India? Perhaps! Should we expect to? Probably not. Should we do more archaeological research in India? 100% Who will fund it?
Smoking is attested both archeologically, and historiographically dating back something like 7000 years in the old world. People have been smoking opium & marijuana in the middle east for probably 2000 years. Smoking culture in India goes back at least 3000 years. Anyone who's accidentally put the wrong thing on a fire will immediately recognize the source for "smoking".
This makes me feel like the rest of your comment is probably not accurate, either.
Bro. Smoking is not the same as putting the wrong thing on a fire. And, while evidence of hotboxing cannabis in tents goes back 3000 years, there is minimal evidence of pipe smoking in the old world. Maybe a bit in Africa— but not conclusive.
No evidence for smoking pipes in India before 1500. Source:
Nobody thinks smoking originated in the new world. Smoking TOBACCO originated in the new world, because at that time it was the only place tobacco grew.
There is a lack of consistency and continuity. We had aeroplane in stories but no similar ground vehicle like Car/train, which should have been invented earlier if technology was present. We had vision across space/time but no knowledge of places outside India.
We had teleportation ;) Jokes aside, the link between car/trains and aerial vehicles is superficial. There is no hard requirement that one has to come before the other.
I mean, if a complete layperson were to describe how an airplane works, how would you even begin? It looks a bit like a bird and err, it's very loud, and it flies! I mean if you don't know the least about an engine, how would you describe it? There's untold masses of people out there that still lack even a basic education, and that education / class difference was worse as you go back in time.
Anyway, your second sentence reminds me of how we interpret e.g. Nostradamus' writing in hindsight, how he predicted Hitler and 9/11 and all that. But only in hindsight.
Not sure if it fits with what the poster you replied to was saying but I find it a bit curious when I buy say a guitar on Amazon and my recommendations (emails or ads in other sites) over the next few days are still guitars. I do not remember seeing one of those promotions which follow a purchase being about accessories or add-ons.
No automated recommendation system is going to be perfect; it’s either going to over-recommend or under-recommend. From the way the Amazon system works, we can infer that they have decided that missing to the over-recommend side is a better business strategy than missing under.
And it kind of makes sense if you think about it... really, what are the consequences of seeing these silly over-recommendations? Did you stop buying from Amazon? I bet the vast majority of people shrug or laugh, but don’t change habits.
Also, big one-time purchases tend to be rare, so optimizing a recommendation system around those is probably suboptimal compared to optimizing it around frequent consumable purchases.
> I bet the vast majority of people shrug or laugh, but don’t change habits.
Or you tell all your friends about it and end up having a conversation about guitars/dishwashers or whatever.
It may not be intentional on their part, but spin off conversations can be a nice by-product for them. Feels like it helps it stick in the mind, a bit like writing a witty TV ad.
I can see what you are saying, the downside is pretty much nil. And it seems like people do buy more guitars than just one. I'm currently just entering this phase where I just now stopped regretting the purchase because I couldn't play any music out of it initially. :)
Well I've had it happen with toilet seats. In 40 years on this planet I've only ever needed to purchase that one. I'd imagine if I needed to get more than one that I would get them all at the same time.
I'm sure there are. I'm also sure, having been around house flippers (my brother flipped for a while, my MIL flipped for a while) and reno (my parents, my MIL, and my wife when we were dating) a few times in my life, that they don't buy them through Amazon/online.
That's the sort of thing you buy a new one because one broke and now it shows up how tatty (worn, old, messy) the other one(s) in your house are. Or someone asks where you got it ... "oh, I can't remember but Google ads showed me the same one of available at $diy_store", or whatever.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
I believe that the poster means that the University system (in the US at least) has been overtaken by "management theory" over the past four decades or so. This is the same theory prominent in business schools / MBA programs. As a consequence we see the vast expansion of academic bureaucracy, completely different metrics for "success," and an attitude towards students that treats them as customers rather than pupils.
It's worth noting that the core aspects of academia have been either pushed out or dramatically altered. Universities might be flush with cash, but they do not pay their teachers (it's no coincidence that adjunctification of the system begins with the management theory era). Professors are left to fight for resources that are being spent elsewhere: on sustaining a much larger bureaucracy (this or that "provost"), or on ancillary services like college sports or other customer-focussed amenities.
I want to believe this won't be sustainable but given the demand for college increasing every year it looks like it will continue until something cracks.
University governance has been aligned by dollars to departments like the business school, which literally didn't exist just a few decades ago. Provost's plan using dollars as the metric of value. These changes have completely changed what the word university means, although these institutions have the same names.
