There's most likely multiple aspects at play: high-chroma pigments were historically limited and/or expensive; varnish yellowed over time; pigments faded. The digitization process probably wasn't perfect as well (I'd expect modern scans should be fairly good though).
> The discovery of older humans does not respond to the point you’re arguing against — in evolutionary time scales, humans are recent.
I meant, evolutionary time scales themselves are subjected to accuracy issues. The measurements techniques themselves are subject to accuracy issues as well.
> but the magnitude of changes tend to get smaller
Agreeing with the tendency, but there are great exceptions; physics comes to mind. The fact that we still don't properly understand QM, and physics being conceptually at the root of many sciences, a proper understanding of it may force to revisit a few things "up there".
> I think painful childbirth pretty much shouldn’t matter much to evolution, because the parents have no control over the birth at that point
Sorry, I (genuinely) don't get the argument.
Regardless, I saw articles [0][1] linking (minor) DNA alterations to exercising. It'd be interesting to see how body stresses in general could impact DNA, and how this would wrap up with evolution.
> then it could just be random noise.
Well, the problem with "noise", is that from the outset, we can't know distinguish between "actual noise" − assuming such a thing exist − or if it's merely a reflection of ignorance. The latter at least gives us direction in which to search stuff. So "evolution provided X, so X _may_ be needed" I guess
Happened to me in the 90s (France). Seems to still be practiced regularly [0].
A 2022 article [1] quotes an ENT advocating it for kids with frequent (3 to 4) bacterial throat infections in winter.
It's often difficult for new ideas to get through people who have upheld the same point of view for decades though. Especially for "selective" fields like medicine (ego issues are probably more developed than in less selective fields). Let alone in fields strongly impacted by money or politics.
> human body [...] has only been around for a vanishingly short period of time in evolutionary terms.
"as far as we know." Every few years, I see in the headlines stuff like "oldest 'human' ever found in X." The theory of evolution itself has morphed since Darwin [0], and is probably far from being in its definitive form.
The timeline remains astronomical w.r.t. a human life, and the perception of a single human. A few centuries ago, we may have burnt people for proposing something like the theory of evolution.
> [...] can be attributed to our very recent move to full bipedalism
Admittedly. But it's still not contradictory with this still having unknown roles. Actually, multi-causality feels like a good way to ensure the stability and solidity of a design: "don't put all your eggs in the same baskets", portfolio diversification, etc.
Thinking about painful pregnancies and birth, [1] hints at the "need" for pain/discomfort. If it's indeed some sort of a necessity, then it may be more of a feature than a bug for us to experience pain directly, through the womb, etc.
Some data points: I bought a Decathlon folding bike (Fold 500; new, ~450€) a few months ago. Using it many times a week (probably more than it's intended).
> f. Nipples are useless in human males (cf. Ch. 5).
When I was a kid, I got my tonsils removed "because they were useless and a source of illness".
I've recently heard that tonsil removal is now more disputed: it may collect filth, sure, but it may also prevent it from going deeper into the body, which may cause more serious illnesses.
Given its vast complexity, and the timeline of its creation/evolution, I remain skeptical over bold claims about the human body. It's really missing an "as far as we know." The ability to go beyond what is known is paramount to the progress of science, and historically attested with some intensity (e.g. Earth's shape, relativity with time/space & axiomatic geometry). Humility thus feels like a better posture.
Who would let a junior dev trim bits, or boldly modify a decades old codebase?
For those looking − as the GP said, it's not fantastically organized − pigments information is available here: https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/waterfs.html. Top links yield access to pigments, organized by "color family".
Two other similar resources on pigments − always good to check what's in the tube before buying!
I directly know people who lived in China, have been jailed and beaten there, and have literal scars to prove it. Hard to brush this away easily from my mind.
Not all people who express negative views on China are alike.
> The only difference between a cult and a religion is popular acceptance.
That's typically caricature. I encourage you to study things more thoroughly before allowing yourself to form an opinion. One simply can't know a subject before having thoroughly studied it.
> It's just you PREFER the christianity bullshit.
I'm not Christian.
Regardless, Christian teachings are freely available. Anyone can practice on their own. You'd be right to critic the church − the institution: people have done it for a while, hence in particular the fair amount of subsects.
Scientology's "highest teachings" are kept private. Its primary purpose seems to be raising money by abusing people's naivety. Compare that to the Christ's « love thy neighbor as thyself. » Very distinct essences.
Which one promotes social stability?
> How is how or where I choose to live my life self centered? I am simply saying I prefer China's way. If you don't prefer it, then don't live there.
I think you've essentially said « I don't care whether people around me get slaughtered, because I'm not the target audience. » Allow me to find this self-centered. And still to find it okay-ish.
> Does beautiful architecture equate with truth?
Not what I was hinting at.
> Additionally all of the things you mentioned are not rational or logical
They actually are, but I haven't articulated the reasoning fully. Nor do I feel encouraged to articulate it. If you're truly in good faith, enough has been already said for you to do your own research
Yup, it's a bit quick, I'll give you that. The numbers in 2025 were higher than in 2024, and in 2023, which could indicate that "it's not very effective" in actually reducing corruption.
I would guess that corruption is probably tolerated as long as it's not too visible, nor undermine people responsible for holding you accountable.
But it's really difficult to understand what's happening in China, because of the difficulty to get factual data.
> My comment was purely about centralized systems of government and how THAT effects competency
I would agree then than centralized government are likely to be more efficient. We've had kingdoms and empires all around the world for millennia, probably not by chance. In my opinion, they can be quite beneficial, as long as there's a substantial amount of morality driving the leading forces. For otherwise, they're efficient in the opposite direction.
China's leader banned Winnie the Pooh from the Chinese Internet because someone said they look alike. That's − dare I say − quite a red flag on many levels.
> I won't in actuality participate in activities that will lead to these types of consequences so restricting me of these freedoms is something I practically don't care about.
Well, it's fair enough, but it is − no offense − a rather self-centered view. It might not affect you today, directly. But it may affect you later, or affect close friends, your children, etc. Genuinely upholding morality within society has a bunch of benefits for everyone.
> But what do you think of scientology? Cults
Agreed.
> Basically the religions that China cracks down on are religions it considers to be similar to scientology.
People in genuine cults are suffering and being abused. Why on Earth would it be justifiable to impose upon them something far worth? If one decides to take down some cults, one may suppose that it's to actually help their members, not to beat the hell out of them; it doesn't make much sense.
There are many, way healthier and efficient alternatives than vicious crackdowns, especially if your intent is to protect the people.
> Ultimately these things are bullshit
I don't know; the most beautiful architecture, all forms of arts, etc. all were rooted in religions. All great men in the past were quite spiritual.
Also, you know, there are things like [0] which really raises eyebrows.
> I'm not religious so, again practically speaking it doesn't affect me. I think most HNers are also atheist or agnostic.
Perhaps it doesn't affect you directly again. But indirectly, or in the long run it might.
Religions are often caricaturally understood nowadays, which I believe is a cause for the increase of their rejection. Don't get me wrong, the caricatures are there for good reasons. But the caricatured things can't be reduced to their caricature − if one attempts to understand them thoroughly and accurately.
there's been, in 2025, 983 000 people receiving disciplinary sanctions[0]. then:
1. either there's no corruption, and people are getting sanctioned for no reason
2. there's corruption
> Less incompetency
one thing they seem to do correctly in China, is to select their leaders not based on pure political skills, but on actual thinking skills: many of them come from technical backgrounds, and have been trained to think rationally.
furthermore, in my experience, Asian people, and Chinese in particular, also have better working habits − stronger wills − than most Westerners.
I'd still be careful about assuming they're really _that_ more competent. intellectual theft, propaganda, rushed work, all could contribute to a temporary illusion of superiority.
> Less freedom for stuff like protesting
this is a watered-down description of the actual situation.
you can get jailed, beaten up, tortured, killed, etc. religious groups seem to be the main target of the most violent treatments[1]. there's really no reason to target peaceful people, via such extreme means.
depends where; in France you can get unlimited SMS/MMS/calls, plus 350Go of data, for 20€/month [0]. it's surprising the market hasn't developed likewise in other (European) countries; I (genuinely) wonder why − perhaps legal issues of some sort?
edit: okay, sending MMS isn't always free, depends on the countries[1]. still free for USA, Europe, Canada, etc.
> It subtly hints at the limitations of language in capturing true understanding
and that's still one interpretation ^_^
> Almost every other ancient text starts of being full of certainty
I can't say for sure about ancient texts, but famous wise men certainly (always?) encouraged a fair amount of humility (e.g. Shakyamuni, Socrates, Jesus, Confucius). But few actually wrote.
however, in general, their followers − and popular interpretations − embarrass themselves much less with humility.
in case this isn't known to you − I find this delightful − note that the (respectful) "子" suffix used in names (e.g. Lao-tseu is 老子, Confucius is 孔夫子) means "small thing", "seed", "child".
> but the opening bit has always seemed straightforward to me
the a/symmetry of the opening bits in Chinese, visually echoes a taiji:
> 道可道，
> 非恆道；
> 名可名，
> 非恆名。
given the diversity of translations available for those bits, I think it's fair to say that there's room for debate regarding their exact meaning − dare I say
amusingly, by being certain one understand what it means, somehow one really does not. Lao-Tseu may have been way, way wiser than average.
This one is a copy (Bargue plate − a famous set of plates designed to train students efficiently). And to be fair, it's not _that_ great of a copy.
The paintings really aren't impressive either: compare them to student works from e.g. the Angel Academy[0] (yes, they are older than 15). Incidentally, they also use Bargue plates a little to train students, and are far, far more demanding with themselves than Picasso in terms of accuracy and cleanliness.
Picasso wasn't terrible − he's definitely better than a non-painter − but he's genuinely far from having ever reached the level of his peers.
It's like comparing a food truck with historical French cooks.
> I decided to use the slowest language on the planet, Python (thanks to the visionary genius of Ross van der Gussom).
given the article, it's fair to assume the author was joking around
that being said, the way the language is used and its ecosystem do contribute to the executable's efficiency. yet, given C's frugality, or the proximity between its instructions and the executed ones, it's not unfair to say that "C is fast"
A few years ago, a journalist went to Duralex, after they restructured (to be own by the employees), and show off the glasses's solidity, live. Every single one of them broke:
In addition to people believing weird things, such views are often highly tied to an environment.
Levitation is pure non-sense for people "in-doctrinated" (literally: ~ to have a doctrine within) by the contemporary, science-oriented environment.
Similarly, dismissing the existence of God(s) − or thinking about it, of levitation[0] − would have been unthinkable for people genuinely "in-doctrinated" by many (all?) historical religions.
Amusingly, contemporary science, which is often defined in opposition to blind religious ways, essentially operates like your garden-variety religion: faith practically required (among others, who can reproduce/prove (beyond a doubt) well-established results), hierarchy(ies)/rating system(s), esteemed texts, key public figures, etc.
Usually, the deeper people understand their own in-doctrination, the more prudent they are regarding what they may consider true or not.
[0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01902-0