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

The lack of actual photos of Labubus "in the real" (usually on a keychain at a pant's belt loops) is jarring. The topic of the "performative male" has been regurgitated in social media for quite some time. Still the author ignores that and misses the overall bigger picture.

I think any argument made here with regard to Baudrillard's hyperreality could be made about most trends, not only Labubus. Actual insight into the demographic is missing.

I prefer the following video which touches on the performative male (it's in German though). Don't get distracted by the title, it's nuanced and offered me some insight into performative behaviors (both the recent manifestation and in general) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rFMdKcR824


Hyperreality is a bogus concept altogether, inasmuch as it's supposed to be something new in human history that only happens because of computers. Prehistoric/ancient humans also had fashion trends and myths and symbols and deep context

computing merely spurred the conceptualization of hyperreality. the original impetus was more along the lines of societal imagery like media, wax museums, or theme parks (as mentioned in the article). computing is not seen in the seminal definition of a map overflowing its territory. this definition does align with integer overflow/underflow but isn't predicated upon the existence of those concepts. therefore the concept of hyperreality may be embodied in many contexts, both prior to and post the advent of computing.

How does it fit into this xkcd?

https://xkcd.com/977/


Too new to be on that one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Earth_projection

Reason for being seems to be more or less "square accurate-area maps are ugly".


Like Robinson, but more so.


I think the comment referred to the phrase „a graph needs X (colors or whatever)“. For me, this can be read two ways: 1. „a graph always needs at least X colors“ or 2. „a graph always needs at most X colors“.

Personally, I would interpret this as option 1 (and so did the comment above I assume). In that case, the statement is wrong. But I’d prefer to specify „at most/ at least“ anyways.

Or even better, use actual vocabulary. „For every graph there exists a coloring with X colors.“ or „any graph can be coloured using X colors“.

PS: I also agree with the sentiment about quanta magazine. It’s hard to get some actual information from their articles if you know the topic.


What about this statement:

No matter how large a car is, it is easy to figure out how much money you'll need to buy it. Simply look at the price tag.

(From: No matter how large a graph is, it’s easy to figure out how many colors you’ll need to color it. Simply look for the maximum ...)


Parent's point is that sometimes (but not always) the store is perfectly fine selling you a car for $1 less than what the "price tag" of Delta(G)+1 dollars asks for, so "need" is a bit inaccurate.


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

Search: