
A List of Open Questions - wrinkl3
https://www.gwern.net/Notes#open-questions
======
egypturnash
> what and why are furries?

You know how some kids like to pretend to be animals? Furries never quit doing
that once they grew up.

> When did furries become a thing? I have yet to run into a clear reference to
> them before the 1980s and they may primarily postdate even that

If you want to be aggressively inclusive you can go all the way back to the
earliest recorded myths about talking animals. If you want to limit yourself
to "people who called themselves furries" then it started somewhere in the
mid-seventies to early eighties.

[https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/History](https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/History) \-
be sure to check out the external links at the bottom, Patten's history is
pretty good, though I advise skimming once the "Burned Furs" come up.

> Is this true, why are furries so rich and well-funded, and why tech,
> specifically?

A confluence of the timing of the growth of the Internet and the growth of the
furry scene. You needed a certain amount of technical acumen to hang out on
Furrymuck and roleplay as an animal person; as the Internet started being an
important thing, it was not uncommon for someone whose day job was in tech to
pass job opportunities on to their friends who were looking for excuses to get
the hell out of Middle America.

There are also _plenty_ of broke furries, for what it's worth.

~~~
ndnxhs
Yeah furries are not rich. The majority of them are about 18 years old and
have as much money as your typical highschool/uni student.

I also think its become a much more diversified group. Still a lot of furs
working in tech but probably less than 40% of furs work in tech now.

------
aasasd
> Does listening to music while working serve as a distraction, or motivation?

There was a study which determined that people do mundane, routine work
equally well with music or without it, but if the work required creative
thinking, music lost to no music. A possible conclusion is that music engages
the regions of the brain which are required for creative thinking.

That's just one study, however, and I doubt that I would be able to find a
link to it now.

Personally I find that if I turn on “Techno Live Sets”[1] when mashing the
buttons, I'm risking doing all the work that's to be done, in one day. On the
other hand, some neo-prog post-industrial breakbeat doom would regularly steal
my attention. But I've already listened to months if not years of techno
cumulatively, while I'm very much in the market for some post-industrial
breakbeat doom.

Also, I have a distinct thing about voice in music: the clearer the words, the
less suited the music is for the background. Mumbling to complex hip-hop
rhythm ok, clear and loud declamation not ok.

Most notably, I can mostly turn off my attention to words in English, which is
the second language for me, while my native language gets straight into my
brain's speech recognition centers—I've been suffering from this quite a lot
when around TV or pop music. Inane lyrics in my language immediately throw me
into stupor of trying to find any sort of reason behind them, while I'm
comfortable with any random drivel in English until I explicitly try to
decipher it. I've also noticed that I can consume text in my native language
pretty fast without any conscious effort, while I can't really skim text in
English—I have to pay attention or I drift off. It seems like for the second-
language English, parts of the brain that transform it into meaning have to be
consciously engaged, while the native language gets the treatment on the
subconscious low level.

[1] recommended! [https://www.techno-livesets.com/](https://www.techno-
livesets.com/)

~~~
virtualized
IMO it goes more like this: Music makes you happy, being happy makes you more
productive. Don't overthink this too much.

~~~
aasasd
That's addressed right in the post linked in the question:
[https://www.gwern.net/Music-distraction](https://www.gwern.net/Music-
distraction)

------
aasasd
> Why does writing in the morning (anecdotally so far) seem to be so effective
> for writers, even ones who are not morning persons? While programmers, which
> seems like a similar occupation, are invariably owls?

I frankly didn't read the whole linked article, but do the writers, by any
chance, do the writing in the morning, but not editing? Because personally, I
regularly have a sorta-confused rush of ideas and notions early after sleep,
that subsides after a couple hours―after which I may find the morning ideas
stupid, or sometimes discover a gem among them, but almost always I find that
calm logic of the day doesn't produce such wild reaches. It's pretty much how
creativity on drugs is usually imagined. I would also guess that if I have a
solid sleep and then a sharp cutoff instead of lingering in bed, the effect is
more pronounced―and this behavior is more of a larkish thing, I think.

Meanwhile, I can't code in that state until I wear it off with articles from
HN and such stuff. But I can code when I should've been in bed many hours ago
and may keel over at any minute.

(BTW, dunno if it's just me, but: I don't ever remember dreams from the deep
phase, however I have vivid and lucid dreams if I briefly wake up and then
drift off again, i.e. after an optimistic alarm. Notably, if I'm imagining
music in this state, it's best stuff I've heard, way off usual patterns and
genre clichés, and it comes effortlessly, while in the day I have trouble
coming up with anything like that.)

~~~
techstrategist
>Because personally, I regularly have a sorta-confused rush of ideas and
notions early after sleep, that subsides after a couple hours―after which I
may find the morning ideas stupid, or sometimes discover a gem among them, but
almost always I find that calm logic of the day doesn't produce such wild
reaches.

I think sleep clears out working memory, and starting the day writing lets
your brain express some things that had been cached previously. I find that
writing in the evening after reading / web surfing / normal daily activities
results in output that is derivative or responsive to what I've read that day.

------
hyperpallium
> [abuse] why does it appear in the biographies of so many people who achieve
> greatness, often middle/upper-class?

Because other people don't write autobiographies?

~~~
mannykannot
There are enough unconfirmed assumptions in this claim that the first open
question is "are the author's assumptions justified?"

------
alasdair_
>Why did it take until the late 20th century for Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu to
develop and the Gracie family crush almost all other unarmed martial arts at
the start of MMA, when humans have engaged in unarmed combat for millions of
years and every major country has long lineages of specialized competitive
martial arts and tremendous incentive to find martial arts which worked and
quick feedback loops?

I suspect the most obvious answer is the same as the issue with other forms of
grappling and wrestling - they are very good in structured 1v1 combat where
there is a guarantee that a friend of your foe won't come along while you are
both on the ground and bash you over the head with a large rock.

~~~
cetico
MMA is new, historically speaking.

BJJ is the best fighting style that fits the rules of MMA. Change the rules a
bit and a different style will work better.

~~~
nafey
Whats the minimal change in the rules that will bring a striking based martial
art to the top?

~~~
abdullahkhalids
I would guess, the following rule changes will help a lot.

* Increase the minimum size of the wrist padding and gloves. Which makes it much safer to throw punches. Additionally, the design of the gloves can be regulated so grabbing someone is harder than it is now.

* Perhaps, add rules about how long you can stay on top of someone on the ground without doing significant damage. A lot of matches end up with a takedown at the start of a round followed by 3 minutes of light pounding and no serious attempt/success at a submission hold. A 20-30 second limit on no serious on the ground action will go a long way.

* Finally, we can directly change the judging criteria to make it easier to win rounds via striking dominance instead of grappling.

~~~
aidenn0
One of the more famous Royce Gracie wins was against a western wrestler
(Severn) who maintained control on top for almost all of the 15 minute match
before being caught in a triangle choke.

------
nthompson
The question about Gracie jiu-jitsu is not so interesting anymore: In the
early 90’s, there were simply very talented jiu jitsu practitioners who were
close to the UFC. Now we’ve witnessed many strategies used successfully in
MMA, like American college wrestling (Ben Askren, Matt Hughes), Thai clinches
(TJ Dillashaw), kickboxing (Holly Holmes), and Judo (Ronda Rousey). In fact
very few fights end with an interesting jiu jitsu submission anymore, the
armbar and the tear naked choke are the most common. These techniques were
never unique to jiu jitsu.

~~~
andrewstuart
I feel that jiu jitsu makes UFC / MMA less interesting.

I'm more interested in of the stand up combat sports like kickboxing.

I reckon UFC is missing out by not having a pure standup division, without the
wrestling/bjj.

I know a former world champion kickboxer who says "Ground and pound? Where's
the honor in that?". I thought about it a bit and realised he is right - where
is the honor, sportsmanship in beating the heck out of someone on the ground.

~~~
ALittleLight
Why is there more honor in beating someone while standing?

The reason to include wrestling is that it makes the contest more closely
approximate a real fight. In a real fight your opponent does have the option
to go to the ground.

~~~
thaumasiotes
How likely is a real fight to be one-on-one, just you and the guy you're
trying to kill?

~~~
ALittleLight
Probably more likely than that it's a one on one fight where you both agree
not to wrestle.

~~~
thaumasiotes
By definition, an unrestricted one-on-one fight is more likely than a specific
subset of one-on-one fights, since the first possibility includes the second.

But neither is likely at all.

Also unlikely: picking a fight with someone who weighs about the same amount
you do.

~~~
ALittleLight
I don't think your logic follows. Unrestricted fights and restricted fights
are both subsets of the set of fights, but restricted fights aren't a subset
of unrestricted fights. By definition, unrestricted fights are distinct from
restricted fights.

Either way, I regret pursuing this topic and won't comment on it further since
I feel this is a discussion not worth having, reading, or writing. I don't
write that to be rude, just as an attempt to hold myself to some standard for
discourse.

~~~
thaumasiotes
I expressed myself poorly. The unrestricted class "one-on-one fights" includes
the restricted class "one-on-one fights where both parties agree not to
wrestle".

------
hyperpallium
>Why did Jean Calment live so many more years than other centenarians,
breaking all records and setting a life expectancy record which decades later
has not just not been broken, but not even approached?

> she requested to be woken at 6:45 am and started the day with a long prayer
> at her window thanking God for being alive and for the beautiful day which
> was starting, sometimes loudly asking the reason for her longevity and why
> she was the only one alive in her family. Seated on her armchair she did
> gymnastics wearing her stereo headset. Her exercises included flexing and
> extending the hands ("a distinguished woman must have beautiful hands"),
> then the legs,
> [https://ewikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment#Daily_routine_at_...](https://ewikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment#Daily_routine_at_ages_111%E2%80%93114)

I don't believe in god, but I believe in prayer: meditation/mindfulness +
appreciation + possibilities + supernatural aid (as in the Hero's journey).

But perhaps not a blessing to outlive one's grandchildren.

~~~
jmcqk6
I'm sure you probably realize this, but it's hard to believe that she would be
the only one to have this type of routine. It seems fairly common...

------
garmaine
> Why did it take until the late 20th century for Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu to
> develop and the Gracie family crush almost all other unarmed martial arts at
> the start of MMA, when humans have engaged in unarmed combat for millions of
> years and every major country has long lineages of specialized competitive
> martial arts and tremendous incentive to find martial arts which worked and
> quick feedback loops?

This one is easy. Because Gracie jujutsu (spell it right please) with its
emphasis on ground technique is only effective when you are unarmored and your
opponent is unwilling to use lethal force. In military and/or life and death
situations it is a good way to get yourself killed by a trained opponent. It’s
not surprising at all that Gracie/Brazilian jujutsu only developed after the
popularization of MMA like sporting competitions with rules that the Gracie
brothers learned to exploit.

------
jhallenworld
>Why do humans have such a large mutation load..

Modern technology?

[https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2017/07/24/evolution-
is-...](https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2017/07/24/evolution-is-slow-
until-its-fast-genetic-load-and-the-future-of-humanity/)

------
Xophmeister
> What happened to the famous genome sequencing cost curve after late 2012,
> which stopped price decreases, damaged genetics, and delayed the advent of
> whole-genome sequencing by perhaps a decade? Was it really just the
> Illuminati’s fault?

Note that the Y-axis is logarithmic; so this is simply a matter of diminishing
returns. The massive fall in 2007-2008 was due to the invention of so-called
"next generation sequencing", but this is bound by technical constraints --
not least the sheer deluge of data -- that have basically been hit. Newer
methods of sequencing, which are now starting to come online in anger, ought
to start pushing the price down again; although note that the data/processing
constraints haven't really gone away and this is now the principal bottleneck
for analysis.

------
danieltillett
> Why do humans have such a large mutation load on common genetic variants?

This one is answerable. Two reasons.

1\. The human population is not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium since it has
expanded so much in the recent human past (agricultural revolution and all
that).

2\. The human population over the last 10,000 years has experienced very
strong natural selection that has carried a lot of deleterious mutations along
for the ride.

What is more interesting is why we have so many chromosomal abnormalities -
humans have something like 100x the rate of chromosomal abnormalities as other
species.

------
craftyguy
> Why do humans, pets, and even lab animals of many species kept in controlled
> lab conditions on standardized diets appear to be increasingly obese over
> the 20th century? What could possibly explain all of them simultaneously
> becoming obese?

Because diet is only part of the equation. The other major factor being
exercise/physical activity (and probably some genetics). If you eat 'well' but
sit at a desk all day, calories in != calories out and you'll probably gain
weight.

Also, since this doesn't cite any sources for the conclusion presented here as
a question, do we know that the 'conditions' were held constant? (hint: no,
probably not)

~~~
gnulinux
I personally believe carbs are mostly to blame (as opposed to fats and
protein). In the Western world there is this idea that fats are bad, carbs are
good but somehow this idea coincidences with astronomic increase in obesity.
We load everything with high-fructose corn syrup and kick fats out of our
diet. There is not much research behind this and my claims aren't evidence
based either. I'm more than happy to refuted if you can provide papers.

~~~
glastra
Definitely. I don't understand why you're getting down-voted without actual
refutals. I guess it generates some internal/psychological discomfort, but I
expected better of HN readers.

Indeed, the only animals suffering from obesity and modern civilisation
diseases (diabetes, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's and other degenerative
or systemic diseases) are humans and those animals of other species
unfortunate enough to be fed by humans.

Diet composition is obviously to blame, but not just carbohydrates (be them
complex or simple, refined or "natural"). Omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids
(and especially their ratio to omega-3's) in the diet lead to inflammatory
responses throughout the body, which can, and do, wreak havoc on health.

If you look at trends in modern nutrition, carbohydrate and omega-6
consumption are at their highest and have sky-rocketed in the past 60-70
years, as have rates of prevalence for various diseases. Of course,
correlation is not causation, but many studies are coming out in the recent
years showing the mechanisms through which all of this takes place.

~~~
gnulinux
This might be true but is very surprising (since Omega 6 polyunsaturated fatty
acids are found poultry, eggs, nuts etc... which I thought to be rather
"healthy" in general) I found this [1] abstract which supports your point. Is
there more evidence? Also what's the relation between inflammation and
obesity?

[1]:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29610056](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29610056)

~~~
glastra
The amount of omega-6 PUFAs in eggs is almost negligible compared to MUFAs and
SFAs [1, table 1]. Assuming that a single egg yolk is around 20 grams, that's
less than 1 gram of omega-6 per egg. One would have to eat an absurd amount of
eggs daily (think >50) for it to matter.

 _Some_ nuts and seeds do contain high amounts of omega-6. Sunflower seeds and
peanuts especially. That is why non-high-oleic sunflower oil is so bad for
health. Almonds, hazelnuts, macadamias and others have much better fatty acid
profiles.

In general, all industrially extracted vegetable oils are rich in pro-
inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids. Replacing them with animal fats or cold-
pressed vegetable oils (olive, avocado or coconut, all of them relatively low
in omega-6) is a very easy dietary intervention that should have a profound
effect on health, similar to cutting sugars.

Here is a non-comprehensive list of studies and articles if you want to dig a
bit deeper:

\-
[https://openheart.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000032](https://openheart.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000032)

\-
[https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jnme/2012/539426/](https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jnme/2012/539426/)

\-
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10988...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1098882316300363)

\-
[https://openheart.bmj.com/content/openhrt/5/2/e000898.full.p...](https://openheart.bmj.com/content/openhrt/5/2/e000898.full.pdf)

\- [https://breaknutrition.com/omega-6-fatty-acids-
alternative-h...](https://breaknutrition.com/omega-6-fatty-acids-alternative-
hypothesis-diseases-civilization/)

\-
[https://www.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/ajpheart.00480.20...](https://www.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/ajpheart.00480.2004)
(especially interesting as it points to a possible synergy of omega-6 fatty
acids and carbohydrates)

I hope that helps.

[1]: [https://academic.oup.com/ps/article-
pdf/79/8/1168/8203403/po...](https://academic.oup.com/ps/article-
pdf/79/8/1168/8203403/poultrysci79-1168.pdf)

~~~
gnulinux
Uh this sucks peanut is my favorite thing in the world :( Thanks I'll check
those links.

------
ArchTypical
> Is there something qualitatively different about personal meetings, and if
> so, where is it? Is it eye contact? Body language?

Over 50% of our communication is nonverbal language. Body language largely,
and no small part olfactory plus auditory (which video conferencing interferes
or blocks). This is not an open question.

> when humans have engaged in unarmed combat for millions of years and every
> major country has long lineages of specialized competitive martial arts

Because combat wasn't formalized then funded to be inclusive and communicated
to the world. This is not an open question.

I'm sure there's more on this list, but maybe someone can update it.

------
vidanay
"Why do so few people in the United States exercise their right and privilege
to vote?"

~~~
craftyguy
"Why does nearly every political race for office in the United States come
down to only two choices: turd sandwich or giant douche?"

~~~
ninkendo
Because not enough people vote in the primaries? I get that you only really
have a choice between two parties come the general election, but you get lots
and lots of choices in the primary.

~~~
dahart
Voting in the primaries would help. IMO, a ranked choice ballot would help
even more.

I don’t need to choose between people who will make essentially the same
policy decisions as much as I want to be able to vote for a third party
without throwing away my vote.

------
laurent123456
That's "Jeanne Calment".

