What a bunch of nonsense. I really urge you to look into more contemporary research on it.
By which measure were they less advanced? Tenochtitlan had a population of north of 200k when the Spanish arrived - bigger than most European cities at that time, bar a couple. When you read the chronicles of the conquistadores you realise how advanced they were in many ways compared with Europeans.
Th Maya were contemporary to and very similar to Greece in many ways - definitely more advanced in some aspects of mathematics and astronomy, and had an extremely complex architecture.
The gap wasn’t so big, and in some cases American cities were even more advanced - probably the complex sanitation system of most mesoamerican cities contributed to the biggest asymmetry of all - European cities were a Petri dish of filth and disease.
Europe was technologically advanced but lacked in state capacity. The Aztecs and the Maya were the opposite.
Sanitation is a literal stone age technology, originally developed by societies we have very little evidence of. It doesn't require technological sophistication — only a government capable of and willing to administer it.
European middle ages were characterized by the lack of state capacity. Cities and trade declined after the fall of the West Roman Empire. Governments became weak and incapable, and the society was structured around regional warlords and their personal relationships. But technology kept moving on. While European societies had limited resources, they could do things their more capable predecessors could not.
And then, towards the end of the middle ages, states started consolidating again.
Ironically it was that Petri dish of filth and disease which gave the Europeans their largest (unintentional) military advantage in the New World. Of course the horses and steel weapons were also a factor.
I'm building https://www.ergodic.ai - and we are using a graphs as the primary objects in which the intelligence operates.
I don't think every graph needs a graph database. For 99% of use-cases a relational database is the preferred solution to store a graph: provided that we have objects and ways to link objects, we're good to go. The advantages of graph dbs are in running more complex graph algorithms whenever that is required (transversal, etc) which is more efficient than "hacking it" with recursive queries in a relational db.
For us, I've yet to find the need for a dedicated graph db with few exceptions, and in those exceptions https://kuzudb.com/ was the perfect solution.
> which is more efficient than "hacking it" with recursive queries in a relational db
It seems to me that the way recursive CTEs were originally defined is the biggest reason that relational databases haven't been more successful with users who need to run serious graph workloads - in Frank McSherry's words:
> As it turns out, WTIH RECURSIVE has a bevy of limitations and mysterious semantics (four pages of limitations in the version of the standard I have, and I still haven't found the semantics yet). I certainly cannot enumerate, or even understand the full list [...] There are so many things I don't understand here.
"After trillions spent in GPUs and data centers, the AI gold rush was finally over when a developer in Lithuania built the pg_thinking plugin - turns out postgres was all you needed all along."
Lol, considering that the entire pricing and risk system of the company runs on a proprietary programming language, I'm pretty sure this is just publicity
Not only that. I have an agent product and I’m currently blocked from using their reasoning models on Azure for having asked for a chain of thought, which apparently is against the ToS.
The customer service itself was surreal enough that it was easier just to migrate to Anthropic
Yes, (ergodic.ai) working on causal inference applied to process mining and event logs. Basically: something happened, why did it happen and how can I avoid it/get more of it?
It's a question of timelines. While I agree with Amazon, we know pretty well the periods in which Rome and London have been inhabited, but the question is more about understanding pre ice-age human settlements, of which we know nothing about because these are more likely submerged now.
Tons of fossils are "negative prints on sediments". GP's assertion that "If humans didn't exist while they do, we would have never known about them" is clearly wrong.
By which measure were they less advanced? Tenochtitlan had a population of north of 200k when the Spanish arrived - bigger than most European cities at that time, bar a couple. When you read the chronicles of the conquistadores you realise how advanced they were in many ways compared with Europeans.
Th Maya were contemporary to and very similar to Greece in many ways - definitely more advanced in some aspects of mathematics and astronomy, and had an extremely complex architecture.
The gap wasn’t so big, and in some cases American cities were even more advanced - probably the complex sanitation system of most mesoamerican cities contributed to the biggest asymmetry of all - European cities were a Petri dish of filth and disease.
reply