Now I think of cats more like amorphous blobs with some hard bits stuck on. I think anyone who owns a cat will know what I mean by this.
I have no clue how that is even possible.
On the other hand, I believe that researching how animals think, behave and "work" in general, is a very important part of being human. They're alive, too, and they defy tons of prejudice we have about them over and over. We need to revise tons of knowledge about animals and other living things, in general.
[0]: https://www.ias.edu/sites/default/files/library/UsefulnessHa...
https://figshare.com/articles/media/You_talkin_to_me_Functio...
and
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632072...
These things also don't compare.
> Péter Pongrácz: The human as a limited resource - a new paradigm to understand social behavior in dogs (Eötvös Loránd University)
Cats no less liquid than their shadows
Offer no angles to the wind.
They slip, diminished, neat through loopholes
Less than themselves; will not be pinned
you are the one comparing apples to oranges - the internet has been around for 50 years and has shown its value - this one has just been published!
I think if there's a large corpus of research supporting a hypothesis, any research retrying that hypothesis in an insignificant way can be disqualified from funding. If you challenge the hypothesis, or adding something significant to the dark areas of that hypothesis, you could be funded.
Moreover, if your research fails to prove that hypothesis, or proves the exact opposite, that should be also printed/published somewhere, because failing is equally important in science.
In short, tell us something we don't know in a provable way. That's it. This is what science is.
This is what I think with about your question with my Sysadmin/Researcher/Ph.D. hats combined.
And what happens when the primary means of funding is attached the volume of papers and not the quality or impact, as is what I believe to be the case generally here in the US?
But the fact that we aren't even allowed to ask questions without immediately being shut down as dissenters of all publicly funded research is problematic.
Public research should absolutely be at least partially evaluated by the very people funding it to begin with.
At the end, if something is not reproducible, and you're testing reproducibility of that thing, it's illuminating a dark area of that hypothesis.
Measuring the quality of the research and its impact is not something I'm very familiar with to be honest, and I'm not from US, so I can't tell how universities push their people, however publish or perish is a real problem everywhere in the world.
We used to see citation numbers important, then cite-rings cropped up. We valued paper counts, then professors started to lend their names to papers in their areas for "free" advisory. Now we have more complex algorithms/methods, and now I'm more of a research institute person than an academic, and I don't know how effective these things are anymore.
But hey, I do research for fun and write papers now and then. Just to keep myself entertained to find reasons to learn something new.
I suspect its because it makes for a catchy headline.
IIRC, many if not most EU countries employ similar methods.
I just skimmed, but I didn’t see any mention whiskers. It’s seems to me that cats can make highly precise measurements of width just by sticking their heads in a space, but height judgments requires additional consideration.
In short, the value proposition for a piece of research is very different depending on the lens you're looking through to that research.
This broken system doesn't just stop at Physics. If you watch the video, she does a great job at explaining what exactly is broken.
I'd love you to watch that video and then come back and explain to me why she is wrong and why the system is actually working well and as-intended.
Sure, but asking asking non-experts on some web forum to make guesses at the answers, and insulting the people whose job it is to do this work based on your assumptions of how it works, is a bad way to go about answering that question.
The reader becomes, in a sense, a greeble.
This paper would have been a fun project for a scientific illustrator.
In a way, I think this is what joshmcginnis is guilty of here...but I want to believe that he's aware that he's being provocative, but being provocative is the entire point. Your initial response of deference and the overall response that his comments are receiving from others are decent representations of how the mere questioning of certain institutions (online, pseudonymously, through relatively obscure channels) can be seen as problematic.
It is something like social science as performance art. Or the other way around?
"On the Rheology of Cats":
https://www.drgoulu.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Rheology-...
> Wiskers are mentioned, but using the scientific name - vibrissae
Their whiskers are a major factor in their perception.
I think they can also dislocate their spine.
My cat likes to sit in what we call his "Buddha" position, with his back bent about 90 degrees, and his paws in front. This seems to be a common position. He'll sit like that for an hour.
"Chicken" as a synonym for "total, utter coward" is slander. Yes, running is their first play, but they do not just roll over and die like a sheep or a rabbit; if running isn't working they can and do fight back for all they are worth. And they don't have to be "backed into a corner" and only fight if it's the absolute last option, it just has to be as I phrased it: "running isn't working".
Taken from: https://www.gq.com/story/aleksei-goloborodko-real-life-diet
If they're lucky, someone who actually knows what they're talking about will walk them through how it's actually a very complex topic, and what looked like an obvious problem is actually just a visible imperfect outcome of what is the best way we've managed to optimize the problem space. Others in this thread are taking this approach. Bless 'em.
But, I think it would be better if people didn't do this in the first place. Research funding is a super complicated topic involving hundreds of people and processes. No, it's not perfect, but it's the best approach we've got. If you want to improve a complex system, you need to go engage with it, understand how it works, understand how the problem occurred (if it even is a problem!), and find a way to fix it without making things worse. This is really hard work! Just busting into a topic and loudly complaining on some random web forum doesn't accomplish anything, except if you're lucky making someone else spoon-feed you the answers you could've found yourself.
Usually it's just ignorance, but sometimes it's more sinister, as it is also a useful approach for pushing an agenda to other non-expert readers. "Look how much money we waste on public science funding! We should reduce that funding. Look at these corrupt self-serving bureaucrats! We should put someone else in charge, and I know just who it should be." Hmm...
My wife and I go between two locations, today will be the first time 4 of the cats meet the murder noodle.
I can also see how any perceived conflict in the top-down relationship between authoritative institutions and the general population can frustrate a person (i.e., a member of the general populace), especially when the institutions are portrayed as vague identities ("the experts") and the complexities that they operate under are a part of a broader network of institutions and entities that themselves seem to thrive under incongruence with respect to the said top-down relationship.
So to draw attention to an issue in a frustrating matter, can be seen as a natural human response. At times it may even be necessary. If not, then we reach a point where we wind up denying of their natural inclination to be frustrated with what they perceive to be (and quite often) an injustice to society, irrespective of class distinctions. And a person does not necessarily need to be an "expert" to point or argue against that.
Not everyone is willing to resign themselves to "it's the best we've got", if that's not what they believe and resignation, or willful engagement with a system perceived to be corrupt, is tantamount to affirming the system itself, which is unimaginable and even more frustrating (read: insanity-inducing).
I say all of this, assuming good faith and not from the perspective of ill intent or ignorance that you've presented (which again, I agree with in principle).
Pardon the commas.
seriously though, you should run for election on this platform!
No, that's extremely optimistic, at best. We've learned that cats seem to use their knowledge of their height but not width when choosing to go (or not) through a hole.
That's it. We're promised follow-up research because it might be that, other than height, they also know and use their additional characteristics, like weight.
That's all. Are you seriously suggesting this knowledge might be helpful in building "surgery robots"?
> and countless things that I'm not even capable of imagining.
Maybe. Are the chances of that enough to justify the expense? Couldn't this work be done more cost-effectively (it's about cats - the world is filled with guys who would do all the experiments for free, given instructions, just for their cat(s) to be in a scientific study...)? Especially since we're talking about Hungary, which is not a super-rich nation.
In any case, allocating funds for research is probably a very hard problem, and I know nothing about it. Still, questioning the expenses is something any taxpayer should be able to do. Just give me good reasons why it had to cost $120k to feed 30 cats for a few weeks, and I'll be happily on my way.
https://web.archive.org/web/20050203111131/http://bonsaikitt...
Obviously it was a hoax, probably one of the first ones reaching the first generation of internet users. But lots of people fell for it.
The contrast with dogs in the introduction is instructive: dogs tend to hunt over open fields rather than chasing prey into narrow dens, so it makes sense they would tend to make conservative eyeball judgments about whether they can fit into certain spaces. But cats will try to corner their prey in a tunnel/etc, so they have good reason to rely more on touch and experimentation ("ecologically-valid strategy").
Is this really just a matter of stretching? I read the article and he sums it down to he needs to stretch every day (he said himself thst his diet doesn't matter too much) He was also in the circus since 4, but this doesn't seems like something I could do in a lifetime of practice.
We were worried their cat would attack our chicken at some point, until one day we saw their cat running for its life while a small chicken chases after it trying to keep up with the agile predator using its tiny chicken legs.
From that day forward the neighbor's cat understood its place in the pecking order.
So instead of the real cat staring at the imaginary greeble, we the reader are the real greeble staring at the imaginary cat. Who is staring back because it can see us.
https://youtu.be/O7PkYkXdKwc?si=-8BTPVvAK19WVEF
This is like “hey what if this cat video was a research paper”
Except in the case of one very sweet but not exactly brilliant large dog I know that legitimately believes his entire body is just the tip of his nose that he can see. I’ve seen him walk straight through a 2” hole in a screen door, and he will repeatedly try to sit on e.g. a chair armrest and not understand why it doesn’t work.
After a few days of recovery and starting to get comfortable, he started to snooze and literally poured off the couch, like a bag of beans... and he loved to stretch in my lap while I coded, putting up with all the typing & mousing... Truly liquid, indeed! Wonderful little guy, I still miss him.
Detached collarbones is one of the many interesting things I know about cats because of my cat obsessed kid!
"!!!" I said.
"What?" She shrugged back into cat form.
"You're a shape shifter?"
"All cats are. There's just never any reason to not be a cat."
$ meme init
meme template initiatedYou got me thinking about this, as I've dealt with a number of sick kitties / foster kitties, etc but we've always used a paper plate with a hole in the middle in lieu of a purpose-made plastic cone. So thinking out loud here, our solution might not have been more generally affordable but also had the benefit of not interfering with whiskers.
"If you have a vertical slit, you're very likely to be an ambush predator," says Banks. That's the kind of animal who lies in wait and then leaps out to kill. He says these predators need to accurately judge the distance to their prey, and the vertical slit has optical features that make it ideal for that.
But that rule only holds if the animal is short, so its eyes aren't too high off the ground, Sprague says."
Ergo, cats have vertical pupils but tigers have round pupils. The tiger can probably judge horizontal distances better than the cat.
1 - https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/08/07/4301496...
Cats also tend to be extremely picky about the feel of the litter in their litter boxes because their paws are extremely sensitive (like walking on your finger tips). Not to mention their sensitivity for smell (flehmen response and affection for well-worn clothes or backpacks).
I think cats just generally tend towards some form of hypersensitivity and the distress of anything you put on them can come from any number of places. No wonder so many seem to suffer from some kinds of neuroses.
You've just reminded me of watching the family cat when I was a child, wanting to squeeze himself into the gap between the end of a sofa and the wall. He tested the gap with his whiskers a couple of times - nope, too narrow. Then the lightbulb moment - he turned just his head sideways, and tested again. Plenty of room! So he rammed himself into the gap. And got stuck.
It's something about how scientific papers are not "for pleasure", they're informational tools. An easter egg in a game is cool right, but an easter egg in a graphics driver? That's the distinction I'm making here.
Scientific articles are informational tools that report results of experiments and nothing more. If the results are interesting to the peers, they are published. By they are not world's laws made paper unless sufficient replications are made. This means that each article need to be read with the context of the literature in mind and with a critical eye. Each are a single point of evidence to a phenomena.
Hence, there are subjective informational tools, written toward a specific audience (the experts of the domains) to inform of a specific result in a specific case.
On top of that, their are specific journal/issues where these types submissions are allowed. Don't read these submissions if you are looking for serious "information tools"
Scientific literature must be handled the same way as legal literature. If you are not a law expert, you ask a lawyer. If you think you are a legal expert when you are not, surprising consequences may arise.
In universities, they are classes dedicated to handling the scientific literature. They are provided for a reason.
So please, don't use cat's physic for liquid simulation in game engine... or please do?
However, the guy who started this thread did. While I don't think the authors of this particular study are on HN, I'd bet we have some scientists here who could respond because they are working in a similar area and have some insider knowledge.
Unfortunately, such guys won't see the question because the post is flagged and dead. I even vouched for that post, yet someone came and decided to flag it again. I have no idea why - as I said, questioning the cost-efficiency of a study should be something anybody can do.
They are just trying to back out of it. This is also their reaction when you first put a collar on them too, until they get used to it.
Cat 1: Fairly timid, very cautious cat, is remarkably light-footed. If she jumps on my bed and starts wandering along my back while I'm trying to sleep you barely notice she's there... that is until she has started hitting me in the face with her paw.
Cat 2: Smaller more hardy cat is a bit more heavy footed, slightly less cautious, but she seems to make some attempt to be light footed.
Cat 3: By far our biggest cat - and also the offspring of Cat #2. Does not try to be light footed at all. He just stomps around. If he climbs on to me, will put all his weight on his front 2 paws, and causes immense discomfort, as he stands there figuring out what he wants to do.
I love them all the same
The cone is pretty much a giant scoop, and cats sniff the litter to find the right spot before doing their business. You can see where this is going. She would take some of the litter with her each time.
On top of missing her tail, she is also missing a few teeth (I'd like to point out that she came like that) so she drools when she sleeps. The litter + drool makes a hardened mess on the cone, which required constant cleaning.
0/10, do not recommend.
The smartest one that we've had is a Cyprus (looking) cat. She's incredibly athletic, has fantastic spatial awareness, and is a murder-machine if given the opportunity.
The feeding logistics of four, one with a special diet, are difficult. I can't imagine having seven of them long-term, especially the litter boxes. I've fostered kittens before, so I had nine cats in the house and it felt like all I did for those weeks was feed cats and scoop poop.
EDIT: again, I'm not that interested in the cost of this particular study - what made me comment was the negative reaction of many commenters to a legitimate, in my opinion, question at the start of this thread. I can both believe the question is legitimate and not be very interested in its answer, right? That's how it is.
If my quick math is correct, for the de Broglie wavelength of a cat to be comparable to its width, it would need to be travelling no faster than about 10^-33 m/s.
The other thing I remember is that brushing down horses was kind of fun - though I'll be honest at the end of the day I never really trusted those animals; they were just too damn big for my tastes.
Man, what a lore drop
But in their catalog of articles, one will have the title: Cats are (almost) liquid
And this is cute, slightly funny, but not correct. From an informational standpoint, this is not related to whether or not cats are liquid. From a material standpoint they consist of both solid, liquid and even gaseous substances. (to the extent we can consider co2 a part of their bodily function)
In a newspaper or such, this would not be a problem, you read it, enjoy it, and move on. But not for serious science. A dry and purely objective title is better in that case, just like how a function should be named based on what it does, not based on some meme regarding what it does.
The paper could be named: Awareness of body flexibility among cats. A function should be named get_employee(), not get_luser().
And the reason why this is true, is because the fad of naming a function get_luser() will become "not worth it" the day someone who didn't understand the meme comes across it, and has to ask you about it. Again especially if you're making a driver/library, something to be used by many, not by just yourself or a few others. And also, the "funny" aspect of it will present a mental hurdle. Instead of simply calling get_employee() in your new context, you will be calling get_luser(), and laughing for a bit and thinking about the bofh comics. Train of thought is lost.
The human mind is limited, and attempting to "capture" it attention leads to an attention arms race. And this arms race leads to tiktok. Which is why we use dry naming for serious pursuits.
