mbivert

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

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.

"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.

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.

A caricature is but an indication of some issues.

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.

edit: okay, sending MMS isn't always free, depends on the countries[1]. still free for USA, Europe, Canada, etc.