←back to thread

World conker champion found with steel chestnut, cleared of cheating

(www.theguardian.com)
424 points notamy | 9 comments | 15 Oct 24 03:12 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
umanwizard ◴[15 Oct 24 03:33 UTC] No.41844648[source]▶
Is this game well-known enough in Britain and Ireland that readers will know what on earth is being alleged just from reading this article? Or are you expected to have to google it?

Apparently it’s a game where you take turns swinging a chestnut on a string and trying to hit the opponent’s chestnut and break it. Yes, I can see how a steel fake chestnut would be an advantage here, though I’m amazed it wouldn’t be instantly obvious to even a casual observer that the look and sound were wrong. So maybe I’m still missing something.

replies(39): >>41844679 #>>41844680 #>>41844692 #>>41844710 #>>41844745 #>>41844790 #>>41844893 #>>41844956 #>>41844990 #>>41845090 #>>41845138 #>>41845146 #>>41845586 #>>41845601 #>>41845668 #>>41845691 #>>41845701 #>>41845708 #>>41845741 #>>41845780 #>>41845876 #>>41845950 #>>41845966 #>>41846137 #>>41846168 #>>41846302 #>>41846427 #>>41846459 #>>41846461 #>>41846479 #>>41846565 #>>41846594 #>>41846647 #>>41846716 #>>41846833 #>>41846898 #>>41847062 #>>41847270 #>>41847710 #
nickcw ◴[15 Oct 24 07:35 UTC] No.41845876[source]▶
I used to play conkers at school in England, however my children didn't.

The reason? Schools have banned the game of conkers due to health and safety reasons.

I asked my 17 year old this morning and he had never even heard of the game of conkers.

So I think the age of conkers is passing, alas.

replies(9): >>41845944 #>>41845994 #>>41846029 #>>41846080 #>>41846363 #>>41846497 #>>41846747 #>>41846952 #>>41847626 #
greatgib ◴[15 Oct 24 10:09 UTC] No.41846952[source]▶
I saw on the wikipedia page the following totally stupid reason for the ban in some schools:

   In 2004, several schools banned conkers due to fear of causing anaphylactic shock in pupils with nut allergies. Health advisers said that there were no known dangers from conkers for nut-allergy sufferers, although some may experience a mild rash through handling them.[20]
replies(1): >>41847081 #
ljf ◴[15 Oct 24 10:32 UTC] No.41847081[source]▶
Interesting, as conkers are seeds (not a nut) - so shouldn't be an issue for someone with a nut allergy - though no doubt some people are allergic to them.
replies(2): >>41847341 #>>41852052 #
joncrocks ◴[15 Oct 24 11:17 UTC] No.41847341[source]▶
It's not quite that simple. The line isn't quite as hard between seed and 'nut'. Namely people may commonly refer to things as a nut when it is a seed.

e.g. a Peanut is a seed, as are almonds, cashews, walnuts.

replies(3): >>41847576 #>>41847805 #>>41849063 #
_heimdall ◴[15 Oct 24 11:55 UTC] No.41847576[source]▶
This rabbit hole goes deep. Berries are particularly poorly named - stawberries, blackberries, and blueberries aren't actually berries but tomatoes and bananas are.
replies(3): >>41847592 #>>41847697 #>>41860939 #
umanwizard ◴[15 Oct 24 12:09 UTC] No.41847697[source]▶
> stawberries, blackberries, and blueberries aren't actually berries

Yes they are

> tomatoes and bananas are

No they’re not.

The word “berry” is much older and more fundamental to language than the technical botanical definition that a tiny minority of people know or care about.

replies(1): >>41847806 #
_heimdall ◴[15 Oct 24 12:22 UTC] No.41847806[source]▶
You clearly understand that there's a difference between the colloquial name and the scientific definition. In the context of the GP comment, the discussion was related to nuts that are poorly named (like peanuts and tree nuts that are actually seeds).

Strawberries aren't berries and tomatoes are. You can say that's wrong all you like, but in the context of how they are botanically classified rather than what we named them you're incorrect.

replies(1): >>41848883 #
umanwizard ◴[15 Oct 24 14:18 UTC] No.41848883[source]▶
The botanical classification is irrelevant outside of papers in botany journals.

If I made up a new, niche meaning of already-existing words, and tried to claim everyone else was using them wrong, you would think I was crazy.

replies(1): >>41849061 #
1. _heimdall ◴[15 Oct 24 14:35 UTC] No.41849061[source]▶
> If I made up a new, niche meaning of already-existing words, and tried to claim everyone else was using them wrong, you would think I was crazy

People do this all the time, though it makes me feel old rather than crazy.

replies(1): >>41849081 #
2. umanwizard ◴[15 Oct 24 14:37 UTC] No.41849081[source]▶
Imagine if someone said "this chair is an object", and you told them they were wrong, because in Object-Oriented Programming, an "object" is an abstract entity in a computer program, not a thing in the physical world.

They have never heard of object-oriented programming and yet, they're not wrong. You're the one who is wrong by assuming the terms made up by a niche field override common language used by everyone.

replies(2): >>41850433 #>>41850883 #
3. aspenmayer ◴[15 Oct 24 16:42 UTC] No.41850433[source]▶
Clearly they're wrong because this chair is a table.
4. _heimdall ◴[15 Oct 24 17:28 UTC] No.41850883[source]▶
Chairs and OOP have nothing to do with each other. Fruits, seeds, etc are plants and fall into botanical definitions.

I get the point that we call them berries even if they aren't, but your comparison to OOP is apples and oranges.

replies(2): >>41851164 #>>41853185 #
5. umanwizard ◴[15 Oct 24 17:55 UTC] No.41851164{3}[source]▶
> I get the point that we call them berries even if they aren't

That wasn’t the point. The point is that they are berries, by the real definition of berries, which is not the different definition used by a tiny minority of mostly irrelevant people in a specific context.

What reason is there to prefer the botanical definition to the common one (that says a berry is a small colorful fruit)? I can see none. On the other hand, I can see many reasons to prefer the common definition: it is older, it is used by far more people, and it more closely corresponds to what we care about in real life (because almost everyone spends more time preparing and eating meals than they do classifying plant parts, so the culinary meaning is more important).

Scientists are not in charge of the whole human experience. They do not get to decide on behalf of everyone else that the salient defining characteristic of berries is not how they taste or what dishes you would use them to prepare, but rather what part of the plant they come from.

replies(1): >>41851762 #
6. _heimdall ◴[15 Oct 24 18:44 UTC] No.41851762{4}[source]▶
Do you take the same issue with the original comment pointing out that what are usually called nuts are actually seeds?
replies(1): >>41852884 #
7. umanwizard ◴[15 Oct 24 20:42 UTC] No.41852884{5}[source]▶
> as conkers are seeds (not a nut) - so shouldn't be an issue for someone with a nut allergy

I take issue with this, and in fact we can see how the pedantic scientific meaning caused confusion about the actual underlying facts: people with allergies to what are commonly called "nuts" can in fact be allergic to things that according to the pedantic scientific definition are "seeds". So the OP is actually wrong to say it shouldn't be an issue for someone with a nut allergy!

replies(1): >>41853960 #
8. ted_dunning ◴[15 Oct 24 21:12 UTC] No.41853185{3}[source]▶
Really?

An apple is a pome but an orange is a hesperidium. Different things entirely.

9. _heimdall ◴[15 Oct 24 22:56 UTC] No.41853960{6}[source]▶
Yep that's totally fair, that could be confusing since "nut allergy" isn't based on scientific definitions.

Though it would make my day if someone tells me they can't have peanuts because of a legume allergy.