https://youtu.be/T6JFTmQCFHg

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2026/03/plan-to-rein-...

No cap on A minuses though.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48291113

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48291018

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

To my ears, a lot of detail is hidden in "knowing what makes itself tick". The limit of human Umwelt, cognitive closure, is an arena I find fascinating.

Modern people tend to identify understanding with mechanistic explanations. Veins, glycogen, immune states, hoof pumps. These are interesting and satisfying to us. But does that kind of explanation satisfy only because we are apes with ape language and interests, leaving aside even that we live in a society that values those explanations?

If a horse-level intelligence existed, perhaps its most satisfying explanations would not be "I can inspect the venous plexus in my hoof," but something else. Maybe more proprioceptive: pressure, load, gait. Or maybe that's just still my primate prejudice poking through.

What would satisfy a horse scientists might seem opaque or insufficient to us, but maybe our biochemical account would seem equally beside the point to it?

Maybe there is no species-neutral answer to what counts as understanding what one is.

On a deeper level, I suspect that a "complete understanding" in an absolute or divine sense is infinite. Our perceptions are necessarily limited, only a model of reality. In order to understand in a way that helps us survive, we must filter out a lot of information that is not absolutely irrelevant, but is irrelevant to us. Even Funes remembered only that which is relevant to a human, that which he could perceive in the first place. He could not remember changes in magnetic fields, background radiation, subtle shifts in gravity.

Alas, this is not my experience of HN. About neutral topics, sure. Not a lot of flaming and irrationality about e.g. C# Union Types or audio reactive LED strips or whatever.

But assert something that a large fraction of people do not want to be true and you'll get, not just downvoted, but flagged and condescension.

I for one appreciated your perspective.

Through substantivization one can definitely have stream-of-. Think "a stream of blue" or "a stream of the poor".

People often shave off the tail of well-known expressions:

“same difference” → “same diff”

“no big deal” → “no big”

“It’s no big.”

“fair enough” → “fair”

“Fair.”

“good enough” → “good enough” → “good”

“Yeah, that’s good.” (implies good enough)

“I don’t know” → “dunno”

Posts that veer into overt anti-Semitic conspiracy theory get flagged because the mask slips too far and they reveal the game.

Do please try to keep up.

So, no. Israel is not "winning the up- and downvote war" of HN.