How many hybrid replies are we going to get?
If the reply as Ai assisted that's a hybrid : Human Thought -> Chatbot Refined -> Answer
Readit Newskbrannigan commented on Ask HN: Are we creating a microverse with these AI agents? · Posted by u/kbrannigan
kbrannigan commented on Hacker News front page now, but the titles are honest. #2 dosaygo-studio.github.io/... · Posted by u/keepamovin
Would be nice to see the original title in some way as comparison. would make it funnier
I want a market like doordash or uber for dev. I see a backlog, i implement i get paid instantly, i move on to the next.
I can gain reputation to have more context or more access to repos to take on more batches.
This would make my life easier.
Minimum $20 per task
kbrannigan commented on Interactive World History Atlas Since 3000 BC geacron.com/home-en/... · Posted by u/not_knuth
If you in ernest take a look at the whole thing you can clearly see how the culture of states/kingdoms slowly spread from Mesopotamia and China to Europe and India. Only after ~3000 years the Roman empire takes over and spreads this throughout Europe. And then another 1500 years pass until the European hegemony really starts.
Also smaller "cultures" which do not constitute states/kingdoms are shown in the map, albeit without color or borders.
But yeah. Evil Eurocentrism am I right.
You say "culture of states slowly spread from Mesopotamia to Europe" but what template defines a "state"?
The Kingdom of Kush existed for 3,000 years. Aksum controlled Red Sea trade. Great Zimbabwe built massive stone cities. Yet the map leaves them blank because they don't fit the Mesopotamian-Roman model of what states should look like.
kbrannigan commented on Interactive World History Atlas Since 3000 BC geacron.com/home-en/... · Posted by u/not_knuth
You're implying this is some sort of "malice". It's not that authors are "Biased towards Europe". The reality is that, sadly, there's VERY LITTLE historical records in antiquity besides the ones in "Europe".
For example, I'm from Latin America, and the most important empires in South America (Incas for example) were using writing systems based on threads and knots (called Khipu). Sadly, these records didn't survive. While Mesopotamia and Northern Africa were already using glyphs carved in Stone (and bones, and wood, etc). These had a much better chance of surviving.
Then, what happened, is that modern "europeans" (starting in 200BC, roman times) invested a lot of time to research and learn about History. This is something MIND BLOWING. Most civilizations didn't even care about their predecessors (aside from deity or folk tales). And that's why what we know today about Parthia or Greece comes mostly from European sources. Don't get me wrong, multiple civilizations had the concept of "early historians", especially Chinese and arabs. But not everything always survives.
Let’s consider *Sub-Saharan Africa* (itself a label that lumps dozens of distinct civilizations into a single “other” category). These societies kept recordsnot folk tales, not vague legends, but structured historical accounts.
* The Kingdom of Kush maintained *3,000 years of king lists*. * Ethiopian monasteries preserved *written chronicles in Ge’ez* for over a millennium. * Mali’s griots memorized *centuries of dynasty records* with such precision that griots from distant regions told the same histories word-for-word when Europeans finally documented them.
Yet when do these count as "real" history? Only after Europeans wrote them down? Only when archaeology "confirms" what griots already knew?
The map shows detailed Rome but blank Africa, despite these complex states existing for millennia. it's about whose preservation methods and developmental paths count as "real" history worth mapping.
kbrannigan commented on Interactive World History Atlas Since 3000 BC geacron.com/home-en/... · Posted by u/not_knuth
The map certainly is not built in a eurocentric way. It does reflect the fact that the political history of Eurasia and the Mediterranean region are much better studied and better understood, but this is hardly the fault of the creator of the map. Do you have a better political map of the Americas two thousand years ago?
The timeline spans "3000 BC" to now, but BC/CE itself is a European framework. The Han Dynasty, Maya, and Kingdom of Kush all had their own calendars and ways of marking significant time. Yet this "world" history uses Europe's reference point as universal.
So yes, the map reflects available documentation. But the very framework - organizing all human history around BC/CE - already embeds a European perspective. The bias isn't what the mapmaker included; it's that European systems became the unmarked "standard" for measuring when history happens. That's structural Eurocentrism: not intentional, but built into the tools we inherit.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
That act of juggling has become an important part.
People will just look for harder problems to solve. It will remain but differently