Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | rishav_sharan's commentslogin

No. And it's not even close.

Rigveda would be around 1500Bce. Even Sumerian cuneiform would be far older at 3000 bce. If you want oldest oral records, some Australian aboriginal stories would be the ones at 8000 bce


The Rigveda is the the earliest unbroken kept record.

The Sumerian tablets are likely older, but they were forgotten and then re-deciphered. The transliterations still carry educated choices made by a scholar (there's only so much you can do when the record breaks for a long time).

Meanwhile, we know exactly how people spoke those early vedas because there is a tradition that keeps chanting it, without stopping, since before it was written down. That chanting has error correction mechanisms, redundancy and other impressive features that further place the Rigveda in a unique place among earlier works.


Can you share some thing to read up on this. Most of these claims do sound fantastical. I am not even sure how would one verify that Rigveda is an "unbroken" oral recitation over thousands of years.


This is a well-known, established scholarly fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padapatha

> The oral tradition of the Vedas (Śruti) consists of several pathas, "recitations" or ways of chanting the Vedic mantras. Such traditions of Vedic chant are often considered the oldest unbroken oral tradition in existence, the fixation of the Vedic texts (samhitas) as preserved dating to roughly the time of Homer (early Iron Age or 800 BC).

https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/tradition-of-vedic-chanting-000...

> The value of this tradition lies not only in the rich content of its oral literature but also in the ingenious techniques employed by the Brahmin priests in preserving the texts intact over thousands of years. To ensure that the sound of each word remains unaltered, practitioners are taught from childhood complex recitation techniques that are based on tonal accents, a unique manner of pronouncing each letter and specific speech combinations.

---

It's not some obscure thing, a web search will yield tons of quality information about it.


Oh and some researchers are putting down the story of "seven sisters"/pleiades to around 100k years ago, back when the 7th star in the constellation was visible


The recovery of a possible oral tradition regarding this is likely drawn from comparative mythology techniques, which is super interesting (I'm fascinated by it, personally), but in another category.


The societal collapse and deaths that are about to happen.


Don't know about any agenda but indian gov sites suck big time. Ux, functionality, stability, information flow - every thing is barely adequate



Well I genuinely like Teams. Being forced to work on a mix of Zoom & teams in my new work, I have found an appreciation of using M365 connected tools - Outlook,claendar, teams, sharepoint, copilot etc just work very well together for me.


I wonder what happened to the other people who signed on notdivided.

I am assuming they quickly realized that they'd rather be rich hypocrites than less rich principled people


I can guarantee you that if there were an accurate test for morality (like humanity) it would show the ones with the least, being the most powerful and wealthy on this planet.


America has been running this test the last decade.

The answer is 30%.


While I agree with the thrust of where you're coming from, that number is much much higher than 30%. While pigeonholing the problem this way might make you feel good, it's really not productive.

The definition of amoral we're using here isn't someone being openly amoral, but rather people who think they're acting morally but actually rationalizing immoral things to themselves as moral. So it's not terribly surprising for this to be nearly everyone - that 30% is also acting directly against their own self-interest, yet rationalizing this as well!

I suspect part of the dynamic with the rich and powerful is that rationalization and general success are both reliant on intelligence - the same ability that helped them amass wealth/power has also assuaged their ego that they did so for some higher purpose. In addition to the obvious dynamic whereby sticking to your morals is generally less lucrative, of course.


I think that many of the most powerful and wealthy have very low morality, but that's not exclusive to them. There have been many sadistic killers who were poor or middle class.


Why do you believe poor people can't simultaneously be terrible people?

Have you never seen the kind of horrific rat race mentality that widespread generational poverty can drive in a society?

Like If you listed the poorest neighbourhoods in the poorest cities in your country do you get highly virtuous places filled with saints.


They don't. You invented that argument from whole cloth.


> it would show the ones with the least, being the most powerful and wealthy on this planet.

I think it should be logically inverted. Right now it says:

Not virtuous => Extreme wealth.

But I think it makes more sense as:

Extreme wealth => Not virtuous


Would anyone knows if asahi is ready to be a daily driver on the m1 sir tet? How is the battery life against stock macos?


For me, it has been ready as a daily driver for more than a year. Battery life is shorter than macos but still long enough that I don't have to think about it (which I can't say about any x86 laptops, even when they use iGPUs).

The notable missing features are external displays (an experimental kernel branch is publicly available though) and the fingerprint sensor. That's about it, though. Given the amount of polish combined with the hardware, it's arguably the most polished Linux laptop experience you'll get.


`sudo cpupower frequency-set -g conservative` might help a bit with battery life.


Sorry, typo. Meant macbook air m1.


Depends A LOT on what exactly you need for day to day usage. E.g. some have higher requirements than others.


Mostly good battery life. I am on the move a lot and can use a laptop with full day battery for mostly youtube and web dev.


The failure to compete will also make US care makers irrelevant outside of US. They are pretty well out on the way already.


I'm trying really hard to think of a US car maker that's actually super relevant outside of the US.

Ford in Europe is Ford Germany, a fully owned but separate entity (which is probably why Ford sales in Europe are decent). I think they have presence in other markets but most of their money comes from the US.

GM used to have Opel/Vauxhall, but it sold it to Stellantis.

Chrysler is now owned by Stellantis, which is a mostly European car maker.

Tesla is the obvious new kid on the block but unless they're the only ones with self driving cars globally, I don't really see them hanging on to their global market share 20 years from now in front of Chinese, South Korean, Japanese and European car makers.

TL;DR: I agree with you.



Don't think so. Whales and dolphins seem to have a fairly sophisticated language with regional dialects and accents.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: