> While dogs slowed down and hesitated before they attempted to use an uncomfortably small opening, in the case of cats, we did not detect this change in their behavior before their attempt to go through even the narrowest openings. However, remarkably, cats showed hesitation both before they attempted to penetrate the shortest openings, and while they moved through it.
I just skimmed, but I didn’t see any mention whiskers. It’s seems to me that cats can make highly precise measurements of width just by sticking their heads in a space, but height judgments requires additional consideration.
> Cats are also aided by their large and sensitive vibrissae, which are positioned on such locations of their head that the cat can detect nearby obstacles in closer encounters. Vibrissal sensation can compensate for the somewhat weaker vision in cats from closer distances or in poorly illuminated environments. Therefore, it is possible that cats approached the narrow openings in our experiment without differential hesitation, and they could use their vibrissae to assess the suitability of the apertures before penetrating them.
If you have ever put a cone on a cat (which lasts about five minutes), you see they get crazy. They hug the walls.
Their whiskers are a major factor in their perception.
I think they can also dislocate their spine.
My cat likes to sit in what we call his "Buddha" position, with his back bent about 90 degrees, and his paws in front. This seems to be a common position. He'll sit like that for an hour.
I think all cats are weird in their own way. Our cat often sunbathed in the middle of parking space across the road. We occasionally had to go out to fetch him because he would refuse to move when someone started to drive into the space.
I hear this sentiment often, but it doesn't match my own experience with orange cats... the one I had back in high school (orange male) was at least as intelligent as any other cat I've had. The orange female I have now is very clingy / anxious and far more territorial than any of my other cats, but otherwise demonstrates at least average cat intelligence. I'd had a variety of different types of cats - a japanese bobtail, a balinese, a siamese, various calicos and domestic types - and the orange ones have been on the upper end of intelligence by comparison.
My orange boy is not smart. He lets me know when he's hungry by walking over to a house plant and pats at the leaves. Other than that, he's a dumb and lovable guy.
The smartest one that we've had is a Cyprus (looking) cat. She's incredibly athletic, has fantastic spatial awareness, and is a murder-machine if given the opportunity.
I think the cones must also screw up their aural spatial sensation (changing their perception of sound from fairly omni-directional, to seeming like all the sounds are coming from in front of the cone).
Have you ever tried putting a leash harness on a cat? We did that a few times and every time the cat would just constantly walk backwards until we took it off. It was like being stuck in reverse gear.
Cats also tend to be extremely picky about the feel of the litter in their litter boxes because their paws are extremely sensitive (like walking on your finger tips). Not to mention their sensitivity for smell (flehmen response and affection for well-worn clothes or backpacks).
I think cats just generally tend towards some form of hypersensitivity and the distress of anything you put on them can come from any number of places. No wonder so many seem to suffer from some kinds of neuroses.
>Have you ever tried putting a leash harness on a cat? We did that a few times and every time the cat would just constantly walk backwards until we took it off. It was like being stuck in reverse gear.
They are just trying to back out of it. This is also their reaction when you first put a collar on them too, until they get used to it.
>If you have ever put a cone on a cat (which lasts about five minutes), you see they get crazy.
You got me thinking about this, as I've dealt with a number of sick kitties / foster kitties, etc but we've always used a paper plate with a hole in the middle in lieu of a purpose-made plastic cone. So thinking out loud here, our solution might not have been more generally affordable but also had the benefit of not interfering with whiskers.
Due to an incident with a door, my cat had to have a caudectomy and subsequently had to wear a cone for almost a month while she healed. It was awful! We kept her in a spare room to keep the other cats away from her, so she had a private litter box, etc.
The cone is pretty much a giant scoop, and cats sniff the litter to find the right spot before doing their business. You can see where this is going. She would take some of the litter with her each time.
On top of missing her tail, she is also missing a few teeth (I'd like to point out that she came like that) so she drools when she sleeps. The litter + drool makes a hardened mess on the cone, which required constant cleaning.
Yeah there's donuts, there's also stiff flat collars. Both seem better tolerated than cones except only cones can protect some injuries (like to the face for example).
I've seen a few people use a soft inflatable or plush collar that's more flat, and doesn't go up around the face, instead of an actual cone. That way the cat's the whiskers aren't disturbed while still preventing the cat from worsening wounds by licking. At least some cats seem to be a lot more tolerant of that style.
You've just reminded me of watching the family cat when I was a child, wanting to squeeze himself into the gap between the end of a sofa and the wall. He tested the gap with his whiskers a couple of times - nope, too narrow. Then the lightbulb moment - he turned just his head sideways, and tested again. Plenty of room! So he rammed himself into the gap. And got stuck.
Before I had cats, I used to think of them in terms of other animals. What I mean is that a dog or a horse is very defined by its skeletal structure. They are like popsicle stick armatures with some flesh thrown on.
Now I think of cats more like amorphous blobs with some hard bits stuck on. I think anyone who owns a cat will know what I mean by this.
For what it's worth, their hips and shoulders are actually limited in range of motion compared to humans, due to the very high muscle attachment points that are also what make them so amazingly strong and explosive for their small size. But an extremely flexible spine combined with the ability to dislocate key joints means they can still fit into very small, narrow spaces, presumably an adaptation allowing them to hunt small rodents that burrow and hide out in underground dens. Which I assume is why they have the instinct to immediately jump into and check out any box or cabinet or other enclosed space you open. You never know if there might be some voles in there.
They actually prefer to jump in a box because to them, it's a safe space to hide and watch. Cats look for spaces like that because their wild ancestors (and feral cats now) are small enough that they are both predators and prey.
Yup. Same reason why they like to climb to high places. They can feel safe and survey the surroundings. Additionally, cats will hide in confined spaces when ill or in pain; a sudden desire to hide for prolonged periods is a sign that it needs to see a vet.
I think a lot of oddities we attribute to cats can be explained by the fact that they are both predator and prey. No other animal we spend a lot of time with occupies such a schizophrenic position in the food chain.
I've noticed free-range chickens have some characteristics that derive from a similar position; chickens are not "predators" but they will happily predate if the opportunity arises, and they are also prey. Being birds and natural flock animals, it manifests differently, and there's some interesting behaviors I've noticed.
"Chicken" as a synonym for "total, utter coward" is slander. Yes, running is their first play, but they do not just roll over and die like a sheep or a rabbit; if running isn't working they can and do fight back for all they are worth. And they don't have to be "backed into a corner" and only fight if it's the absolute last option, it just has to be as I phrased it: "running isn't working".
We owned a small chicken that roamed in our garden, but not long after we got that chicken our neighbors got a cat.
We were worried their cat would attack our chicken at some point, until one day we saw their cat running for its life while a small chicken chases after it trying to keep up with the agile predator using its tiny chicken legs.
From that day forward the neighbor's cat understood its place in the pecking order.
A cat is like a small tiger. Ferocious at times, but mostly very cautious. If something doesn't work as planned, their default reaction is to abort asap.
Yeah, nope. If I get like that, I'm never coming back. Probably have to bury me in that pose.
Is this really just a matter of stretching? I read the article and he sums it down to he needs to stretch every day (he said himself thst his diet doesn't matter too much) He was also in the circus since 4, but this doesn't seems like something I could do in a lifetime of practice.
You probably couldn't. There are lots of forms of hyper mobility, and extreme versions come with health risks. With practice and training you can probably do a lot more than you imagine, but for most of us the whole "fold yourself in half backwards" thing is beyond the limits of our spine, and it's for the best.
No, it's not just down to stretching although I remember being told that as a kid when asking about "snake ladies" in circuses. Yes, the stretching and training is necessary but all the stretching and training in the world won't help you bend like this. Some people simply have hypermobilities (often from connective tissue disorders) and these can allow them to bend themselves into a pretzel. The stretching and training is as much for learning how to take it to such extremes as it is for learning how to do it (relatively) safely. Of course these conditions can still often lead to complications and often have other negative impacts like chronic pain, frequent bruising, slower healing and a tendency to dislocate various joints.
My Shiba Inu does all kinds of similar things. He also doesn't hesitate at all when trying narrow spaces. He only hesitates once he's all the way in and realize he can't go any further nor turn around so he has to back up completely back out.
We joke that our small cat (she's old but small framed and lightweight) can put her entire body weight into every individual paw at the same time when she wants. You can pick her up and she'll weigh next to nothing and she can run over you like a feather but she can also simultaneously have four lead columns for legs if she wants to. I'm convinced cats are four dimensional or something.
My 3 cats are all completely different in this regard.
Cat 1: Fairly timid, very cautious cat, is remarkably light-footed. If she jumps on my bed and starts wandering along my back while I'm trying to sleep you barely notice she's there... that is until she has started hitting me in the face with her paw.
Cat 2: Smaller more hardy cat is a bit more heavy footed, slightly less cautious, but she seems to make some attempt to be light footed.
Cat 3: By far our biggest cat - and also the offspring of Cat #2. Does not try to be light footed at all. He just stomps around. If he climbs on to me, will put all his weight on his front 2 paws, and causes immense discomfort, as he stands there figuring out what he wants to do.
A stray cat I adopted as we could not find his owner was named "Beanbag" (transitioning to "Mr Bean", no reference to the comedian)for exactly this quality.
After a few days of recovery and starting to get comfortable, he started to snooze and literally poured off the couch, like a bag of beans... and he loved to stretch in my lap while I coded, putting up with all the typing & mousing... Truly liquid, indeed! Wonderful little guy, I still miss him.
I only went ridding a couple of times when I was a kind but the thing I remember is you'd start off on a ride ... then stop, tighten the saddle, start again and continue on the ride. Though I think maybe we'd do that twice.
The other thing I remember is that brushing down horses was kind of fun - though I'll be honest at the end of the day I never really trusted those animals; they were just too damn big for my tastes.
My cat can sleep with its head upside-down event if there's no apparent reason for it to do that. I have another cat tough, which is tough, heavy but small, and resisting any external force, also keeping his claws open.
yes i think this model of cats is exactly right. kind of like how our fingertips would just be lumpy sacs without fingernails, cats seem to have structure and flexibility in the way that like a tent does.
Those would need to be very low-energy cats. You wouldn't be able to look at them for a very, very long time.
If my quick math is correct, for the de Broglie wavelength of a cat to be comparable to its width, it would need to be travelling no faster than about 10^-33 m/s.
> If the opportunity was given to them, dogs opted for a detour in the case of uncomfortably small apertures
Except in the case of one very sweet but not exactly brilliant large dog I know that legitimately believes his entire body is just the tip of his nose that he can see. I’ve seen him walk straight through a 2” hole in a screen door, and he will repeatedly try to sit on e.g. a chair armrest and not understand why it doesn’t work.
Black cats are the best. She is one of two sisters (oldest cats at 9 at this point). 17 pounds of chunk loving. Annoying as all get out, but will literally roll around on the arm of the couch and “accidentally” drop into my lap.
My wife and I go between two locations, today will be the first time 4 of the cats meet the murder noodle.
We had two cats, and my wife wanted more. I was happy with two, so we compromised and now we have four of them.
The feeding logistics of four, one with a special diet, are difficult. I can't imagine having seven of them long-term, especially the litter boxes. I've fostered kittens before, so I had nine cats in the house and it felt like all I did for those weeks was feed cats and scoop poop.
Interesting because I have recently been trying to catch a stray cat for a capture-release process and the cat will not walk into a typical trap-door type wire mesh trap. Watching him on video the roof of the trap seems to freak him out. It seems a better trap would have a narrow gap with high door that lets them confidently walk into the trap and trigger would just block the slot perhaps with some sort of sliding door blocking the exit.
The overhead view of figure 3 in particular is noteworthy to me. The 3 human subjects are represented as abstract ovals, and the cat drawn as a cat who is staring up as if to look through the fourth ceiling at the reader.
The reader becomes, in a sense, a greeble.
This paper would have been a fun project for a scientific illustrator.
For reference, in the cat realm a greeble is what cats are looking at when they stare up at the ceiling or wall and there is nothing there. At least that you can see.
So instead of the real cat staring at the imaginary greeble, we the reader are the real greeble staring at the imaginary cat. Who is staring back because it can see us.
In addition to the vibrissae explanation, I also wonder if their eyes (vertical pupils) just see better when it comes to height and not width, necessitating greater hesitation when it comes to judging things at their height and not high in the air. I am thinking they might need to move their head or eyes a bit side to side, though it may still be too fast to be readily apparent to the researcher. Relevant article [1]:
"If you have a vertical slit, you're very likely to be an ambush predator," says Banks. That's the kind of animal who lies in wait and then leaps out to kill. He says these predators need to accurately judge the distance to their prey, and the vertical slit has optical features that make it ideal for that.
But that rule only holds if the animal is short, so its eyes aren't too high off the ground, Sprague says."
Ergo, cats have vertical pupils but tigers have round pupils. The tiger can probably judge horizontal distances better than the cat.
The title made me click, and the content was enjoyable. But I still don't think clickbait like this should be present in scientific papers.
It's something about how scientific papers are not "for pleasure", they're informational tools. An easter egg in a game is cool right, but an easter egg in a graphics driver? That's the distinction I'm making here.
I am so puzzled by this attitude. People are free to make any distinction they want, the way they want, but the representation you have of a scientific literature is erroneous.
Scientific articles are informational tools that report results of experiments and nothing more. If the results are interesting to the peers, they are published. By they are not world's laws made paper unless sufficient replications are made.
This means that each article need to be read with the context of the literature in mind and with a critical eye. Each are a single point of evidence to a phenomena.
Hence, there are subjective informational tools, written toward a specific audience (the experts of the domains) to inform of a specific result in a specific case.
On top of that, their are specific journal/issues where these types submissions are allowed. Don't read these submissions if you are looking for serious "information tools"
Scientific literature must be handled the same way as legal literature. If you are not a law expert, you ask a lawyer. If you think you are a legal expert when you are not, surprising consequences may arise.
In universities, they are classes dedicated to handling the scientific literature. They are provided for a reason.
So please, don't use cat's physic for liquid simulation in game engine... or please do?
Let's imagine someone interested in the biology of cats and felines at large. A specialized biologist. They might choose to personally catalog all publications which have use for them, like this article surely might.
But in their catalog of articles, one will have the title: Cats are (almost) liquid
And this is cute, slightly funny, but not correct. From an informational standpoint, this is not related to whether or not cats are liquid. From a material standpoint they consist of both solid, liquid and even gaseous substances. (to the extent we can consider co2 a part of their bodily function)
In a newspaper or such, this would not be a problem, you read it, enjoy it, and move on. But not for serious science. A dry and purely objective title is better in that case, just like how a function should be named based on what it does, not based on some meme regarding what it does.
The paper could be named: Awareness of body flexibility among cats. A function should be named get_employee(), not get_luser().
And the reason why this is true, is because the fad of naming a function get_luser() will become "not worth it" the day someone who didn't understand the meme comes across it, and has to ask you about it. Again especially if you're making a driver/library, something to be used by many, not by just yourself or a few others. And also, the "funny" aspect of it will present a mental hurdle. Instead of simply calling get_employee() in your new context, you will be calling get_luser(), and laughing for a bit and thinking about the bofh comics. Train of thought is lost.
The human mind is limited, and attempting to "capture" it attention leads to an attention arms race. And this arms race leads to tiktok. Which is why we use dry naming for serious pursuits.
Much easier: A cat only knows about the size of its head. If the head fits through, the body will do also.
That's extremely easy to guess for a cat, no body awareness, just head radius awareness
I watched as a cat dove through a narrow opening
(stair baulsters)only to wedge its aft end,stop dead,do a totaly ignoble face plant,and then sort of oooze through to land gracelessly.
So in this case there was no hesitation,and cats
regularly missjudge and get run over by cars,so at best the data is just that...data.
Cats cannot be defined as liquid, as liquid is a scientific classification based in the laws of physics, and cats are widely known for not particularly caring about obeying the laws of physics.
When a cat can go between two openings that are too small for the cat to pass through and the cat isn't being observed is what's interesting though and nobody has yet explained that.
Anecdotally my cat is always very cautious before going through cat flags, which are not particularly narrow but very short, but never hesitate to run into narrow but deep stuff...
He's taken down at least a dozen videos criticizing him by using his position as a youtuber with a million+ subscribers. Originally it was just videos referencing his "maldavius figtree" fursona, but now it's anything that portrays him in a negative way.
Catchy headline, but also in a fluid in a dynamical sense - cats "flow" into spaces when exploring by trial-and-error testing openings with their body size, but they are also only "almost" liquid in that for especially narrow openings they are reluctant to poke their heads in, presumably because they might get stuck.
The contrast with dogs in the introduction is instructive: dogs tend to hunt over open fields rather than chasing prey into narrow dens, so it makes sense they would tend to make conservative eyeball judgments about whether they can fit into certain spaces. But cats will try to corner their prey in a tunnel/etc, so they have good reason to rely more on touch and experimentation ("ecologically-valid strategy").
I agree. I think it's a bit of nod into the playfulness most associate with cats. I don't mind though, cats are one subject I'm okay with some leeway in the rigorousness of the article title.
The early networks that evolved into the modern Internet were mostly paid for with public funds, and they’re used nowadays mostly to watch cat videos. I don’t see anyone complaining about that /)
> no, it might lead to better surgery robots, search and rescue robots,
No, that's extremely optimistic, at best. We've learned that cats seem to use their knowledge of their height but not width when choosing to go (or not) through a hole.
That's it. We're promised follow-up research because it might be that, other than height, they also know and use their additional characteristics, like weight.
That's all. Are you seriously suggesting this knowledge might be helpful in building "surgery robots"?
> and countless things that I'm not even capable of imagining.
Maybe. Are the chances of that enough to justify the expense? Couldn't this work be done more cost-effectively (it's about cats - the world is filled with guys who would do all the experiments for free, given instructions, just for their cat(s) to be in a scientific study...)? Especially since we're talking about Hungary, which is not a super-rich nation.
In any case, allocating funds for research is probably a very hard problem, and I know nothing about it. Still, questioning the expenses is something any taxpayer should be able to do. Just give me good reasons why it had to cost $120k to feed 30 cats for a few weeks, and I'll be happily on my way.
I'm not that interested - I'm not from Hungary, if for no other reason.
However, the guy who started this thread did. While I don't think the authors of this particular study are on HN, I'd bet we have some scientists here who could respond because they are working in a similar area and have some insider knowledge.
Unfortunately, such guys won't see the question because the post is flagged and dead. I even vouched for that post, yet someone came and decided to flag it again. I have no idea why - as I said, questioning the cost-efficiency of a study should be something anybody can do.
What effort? I just wrote two short comments. I also have no idea where to even begin getting the info from the horse's mouth in this case. Just getting ahold of a proper communication channel would be 1-2 orders of magnitude more effort than my comments here...
EDIT: again, I'm not that interested in the cost of this particular study - what made me comment was the negative reaction of many commenters to a legitimate, in my opinion, question at the start of this thread. I can both believe the question is legitimate and not be very interested in its answer, right? That's how it is.
Those are great questions worthy of debate. But we shouldn't just give up on those hard questions and say that all research is worthy of public funding should we?
public funds are allocated by multiple experts in various fields checking applications are in line with government policy. if you think you can do better, I'd encourage you to run for election and set different policies. from what I can see, the system is working as intended.
I've seen the video - to be fair, theoretical physics is probably the cheapest thing to fund - they just need a supply of chalk. ultimately a lot of physics is a jobs program to keep physicists from going abroad and working on a foreign nuclear program.
seriously though, you should run for election on this platform!
When asking these kinds of questions, I always remind myself "The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge" [0].
On the other hand, I believe that researching how animals think, behave and "work" in general, is a very important part of being human. They're alive, too, and they defy tons of prejudice we have about them over and over. We need to revise tons of knowledge about animals and other living things, in general.
I think if there's a large corpus of research supporting a hypothesis, any research retrying that hypothesis in an insignificant way can be disqualified from funding. If you challenge the hypothesis, or adding something significant to the dark areas of that hypothesis, you could be funded.
Moreover, if your research fails to prove that hypothesis, or proves the exact opposite, that should be also printed/published somewhere, because failing is equally important in science.
In short, tell us something we don't know in a provable way. That's it. This is what science is.
This is what I think with about your question with my Sysadmin/Researcher/Ph.D. hats combined.
Thanks for your kind response! Are you familiar with the Replication Crisis? What happens when most of the "hypothesis" being challenged can't be rightly replicated in the first place?
And what happens when the primary means of funding is attached the volume of papers and not the quality or impact, as is what I believe to be the case generally here in the US?
Hey, no problem. Yes, I'm familiar with it, and I work in/with projects which aims to create reproducible research (Galaxy, Zenodo, etc.). If you tell me that "I can make this unreproducible paper reproducible, but with a different process (or the same one), and share all the pipeline from dust to result", I'll tell you to go for it, and fund you.
At the end, if something is not reproducible, and you're testing reproducibility of that thing, it's illuminating a dark area of that hypothesis.
Measuring the quality of the research and its impact is not something I'm very familiar with to be honest, and I'm not from US, so I can't tell how universities push their people, however publish or perish is a real problem everywhere in the world.
We used to see citation numbers important, then cite-rings cropped up. We valued paper counts, then professors started to lend their names to papers in their areas for "free" advisory. Now we have more complex algorithms/methods, and now I'm more of a research institute person than an academic, and I don't know how effective these things are anymore.
But hey, I do research for fun and write papers now and then. Just to keep myself entertained to find reasons to learn something new.
Fair enough and all great points. I think we're more aligned than not on the fundamentals here. Folks seem to be reacting negatively to my even propositioning these questions without even having made a judgment on the merit of the study myself.
Yes, we agree in the fundamentals. The reality is, academia dynamics is very different w.r.t. to private sector, esp. startups. So, knowing how research works in academia is a bit of an unknown for people who're not interested in this line of work, or people who doesn't know how these things are done in general.
In short, the value proposition for a piece of research is very different depending on the lens you're looking through to that research.
Why are you asking us? I'm not a research scientist/funding expert. There are people whose job it is to decide that, and they decided it was. I trust them to do their jobs, just like they trust me to do my job when they need my services.
Because it's not like that everywhere in the world. For example, here, to be able to get funding, you need to pass a panel interview of researchers who are experienced in the area of your research. Our system employs "hordes of research experts" to shake down most inadequate ones, and push the rest to the actual researchers to further filter them.
IIRC, many if not most EU countries employ similar methods.
My agenda is that I think it's completely rationale to ask about the merits of publicly funded research and debate that topic. You may not like that question or my responses, but that is my assertion here.
> completely rational to ask about the merits of publicly funded research
Sure, but asking asking non-experts on some web forum to make guesses at the answers, and insulting the people whose job it is to do this work based on your assumptions of how it works, is a bad way to go about answering that question.
I was rooting against you in this exchange until you said this , because I took your initial plea for authority to be a cop out from joshmcginnis's argument, because I'm a human and have biases and sometimes put the quality of "earnestness" behind my beliefs above others' (i.e., whether I agree with them or not, my counterpart is equally sincere in what they believe in as me). That disposition is unwise and I think my realization of this underpins what I found striking about the comment that you just made.
In a way, I think this is what joshmcginnis is guilty of here...but I want to believe that he's aware that he's being provocative, but being provocative is the entire point. Your initial response of deference and the overall response that his comments are receiving from others are decent representations of how the mere questioning of certain institutions (online, pseudonymously, through relatively obscure channels) can be seen as problematic.
It is something like social science as performance art. Or the other way around?
There's an extremely annoying pattern you see a lot, where someone with a naive understanding of an extremely complicated topic will bust in and say "you are all idiots who are obviously doing it wrong!" without having any understanding of the deep, complex history of the topic. They think they know better than the experts, because they found what looks like an obvious, surface-level problem. After all, why haven't those idiots noticed this problem and fixed it??
If they're lucky, someone who actually knows what they're talking about will walk them through how it's actually a very complex topic, and what looked like an obvious problem is actually just a visible imperfect outcome of what is the best way we've managed to optimize the problem space. Others in this thread are taking this approach. Bless 'em.
But, I think it would be better if people didn't do this in the first place. Research funding is a super complicated topic involving hundreds of people and processes. No, it's not perfect, but it's the best approach we've got. If you want to improve a complex system, you need to go engage with it, understand how it works, understand how the problem occurred (if it even is a problem!), and find a way to fix it without making things worse. This is really hard work! Just busting into a topic and loudly complaining on some random web forum doesn't accomplish anything, except if you're lucky making someone else spoon-feed you the answers you could've found yourself.
Usually it's just ignorance, but sometimes it's more sinister, as it is also a useful approach for pushing an agenda to other non-expert readers. "Look how much money we waste on public science funding! We should reduce that funding. Look at these corrupt self-serving bureaucrats! We should put someone else in charge, and I know just who it should be." Hmm...
I agree with you in principle and I wouldn't want to allege the entirety of what you've said to joshuamcginnis's approach or motives. But I agree with you in principle.
I can also see how any perceived conflict in the top-down relationship between authoritative institutions and the general population can frustrate a person (i.e., a member of the general populace), especially when the institutions are portrayed as vague identities ("the experts") and the complexities that they operate under are a part of a broader network of institutions and entities that themselves seem to thrive under incongruence with respect to the said top-down relationship.
So to draw attention to an issue in a frustrating matter, can be seen as a natural human response. At times it may even be necessary. If not, then we reach a point where we wind up denying of their natural inclination to be frustrated with what they perceive to be (and quite often) an injustice to society, irrespective of class distinctions. And a person does not necessarily need to be an "expert" to point or argue against that.
Not everyone is willing to resign themselves to "it's the best we've got", if that's not what they believe and resignation, or willful engagement with a system perceived to be corrupt, is tantamount to affirming the system itself, which is unimaginable and even more frustrating (read: insanity-inducing).
I say all of this, assuming good faith and not from the perspective of ill intent or ignorance that you've presented (which again, I agree with in principle).
It's entirely rational and reasonable for someone to at least ask and receive a decent response to the question, "Why should my tax dollars have been used to funded this research?" Academia should have great responses lined up which garner continued support from the public.
But the fact that we aren't even allowed to ask questions without immediately being shut down as dissenters of all publicly funded research is problematic.
Public research should absolutely be at least partially evaluated by the very people funding it to begin with.
Hungarians aren’t brutish optimizers who cut costs and strive for uniformity and blandness; they are not like those philistines that know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. Or else they wouldn’t speak Hungarian.
> While dogs slowed down and hesitated before they attempted to use an uncomfortably small opening, in the case of cats, we did not detect this change in their behavior before their attempt to go through even the narrowest openings. However, remarkably, cats showed hesitation both before they attempted to penetrate the shortest openings, and while they moved through it.
I just skimmed, but I didn’t see any mention whiskers. It’s seems to me that cats can make highly precise measurements of width just by sticking their heads in a space, but height judgments requires additional consideration.
> Cats are also aided by their large and sensitive vibrissae, which are positioned on such locations of their head that the cat can detect nearby obstacles in closer encounters. Vibrissal sensation can compensate for the somewhat weaker vision in cats from closer distances or in poorly illuminated environments. Therefore, it is possible that cats approached the narrow openings in our experiment without differential hesitation, and they could use their vibrissae to assess the suitability of the apertures before penetrating them.
Oh thank you! I’m just a lowly cat owner and did not know what vibrissae are.
If you have ever put a cone on a cat (which lasts about five minutes), you see they get crazy. They hug the walls.
Their whiskers are a major factor in their perception.
I think they can also dislocate their spine.
My cat likes to sit in what we call his "Buddha" position, with his back bent about 90 degrees, and his paws in front. This seems to be a common position. He'll sit like that for an hour.
My cats are weird and loved their cones after they got neutered. One would stick his head back in the cone after I took it off.
I think all cats are weird in their own way. Our cat often sunbathed in the middle of parking space across the road. We occasionally had to go out to fetch him because he would refuse to move when someone started to drive into the space.
I have a ginger tomboy who does exactly this. He loves just rolling around in the fine layer of dirt while keeping an eye out for birds or frogs
Orange cats sharing their one brain cell.
I hear this sentiment often, but it doesn't match my own experience with orange cats... the one I had back in high school (orange male) was at least as intelligent as any other cat I've had. The orange female I have now is very clingy / anxious and far more territorial than any of my other cats, but otherwise demonstrates at least average cat intelligence. I'd had a variety of different types of cats - a japanese bobtail, a balinese, a siamese, various calicos and domestic types - and the orange ones have been on the upper end of intelligence by comparison.
My orange boy is not smart. He lets me know when he's hungry by walking over to a house plant and pats at the leaves. Other than that, he's a dumb and lovable guy.
The smartest one that we've had is a Cyprus (looking) cat. She's incredibly athletic, has fantastic spatial awareness, and is a murder-machine if given the opportunity.
He's probably threatening you. Warning you that if you don't feed him he's going to start destroying your precious house plants
Yeah, if we don't feed him he eventually starts nibbling on the leaves. I haven't lost any plants.. yet.
I think mine goes to the bathroom, when it's his turn with it...
> I have a ginger tomboy
I don't think that's what you meant to say. Or maybe it is.
I think the cones must also screw up their aural spatial sensation (changing their perception of sound from fairly omni-directional, to seeming like all the sounds are coming from in front of the cone).
Have you ever tried putting a leash harness on a cat? We did that a few times and every time the cat would just constantly walk backwards until we took it off. It was like being stuck in reverse gear.
Cats also tend to be extremely picky about the feel of the litter in their litter boxes because their paws are extremely sensitive (like walking on your finger tips). Not to mention their sensitivity for smell (flehmen response and affection for well-worn clothes or backpacks).
I think cats just generally tend towards some form of hypersensitivity and the distress of anything you put on them can come from any number of places. No wonder so many seem to suffer from some kinds of neuroses.
>Have you ever tried putting a leash harness on a cat? We did that a few times and every time the cat would just constantly walk backwards until we took it off. It was like being stuck in reverse gear.
They are just trying to back out of it. This is also their reaction when you first put a collar on them too, until they get used to it.
I am surprised that without any special training or accustomation (is that a word?), our Siamese cats are just fine with being on a harness.
>If you have ever put a cone on a cat (which lasts about five minutes), you see they get crazy.
You got me thinking about this, as I've dealt with a number of sick kitties / foster kitties, etc but we've always used a paper plate with a hole in the middle in lieu of a purpose-made plastic cone. So thinking out loud here, our solution might not have been more generally affordable but also had the benefit of not interfering with whiskers.
Due to an incident with a door, my cat had to have a caudectomy and subsequently had to wear a cone for almost a month while she healed. It was awful! We kept her in a spare room to keep the other cats away from her, so she had a private litter box, etc.
The cone is pretty much a giant scoop, and cats sniff the litter to find the right spot before doing their business. You can see where this is going. She would take some of the litter with her each time.
On top of missing her tail, she is also missing a few teeth (I'd like to point out that she came like that) so she drools when she sleeps. The litter + drool makes a hardened mess on the cone, which required constant cleaning.
0/10, do not recommend.
You can buy plush neck donuts which do the same thing, my cat lasted one day with a cone before I felt too bad and same day delivered one.
Yeah there's donuts, there's also stiff flat collars. Both seem better tolerated than cones except only cones can protect some injuries (like to the face for example).
They have little onsies now too. That's what we used when my kitten was spaded and it was so much better.
That’s really clever!
I've seen a few people use a soft inflatable or plush collar that's more flat, and doesn't go up around the face, instead of an actual cone. That way the cat's the whiskers aren't disturbed while still preventing the cat from worsening wounds by licking. At least some cats seem to be a lot more tolerant of that style.
I tried this but cats, being (almost) liquid, can very easily wrap around the soft collars and reach pretty much any part of their body.
Putting some tape on the back makes them immediately crunch down and creep. There is definitively a reflex going on.
This can be done with a balloon and static electricity.
> Highly precise... requires additional consideration
You've just reminded me of watching the family cat when I was a child, wanting to squeeze himself into the gap between the end of a sofa and the wall. He tested the gap with his whiskers a couple of times - nope, too narrow. Then the lightbulb moment - he turned just his head sideways, and tested again. Plenty of room! So he rammed himself into the gap. And got stuck.
From skimming the HN comments:
> Wiskers are mentioned, but using the scientific name - vibrissae
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41870897
Calvin vindicated
https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/04/20
I love C&H and am blown away there was something so applicable. Felt like an XKCD moment!
Lol I automatically read C&H as Cyanide and Happiness
C&H moments are the original XKCD moments!
Bill Watterson was absolutely brilliant at depicting the weird positions that cats will lie in.
Before I had cats, I used to think of them in terms of other animals. What I mean is that a dog or a horse is very defined by its skeletal structure. They are like popsicle stick armatures with some flesh thrown on.
Now I think of cats more like amorphous blobs with some hard bits stuck on. I think anyone who owns a cat will know what I mean by this.
For what it's worth, their hips and shoulders are actually limited in range of motion compared to humans, due to the very high muscle attachment points that are also what make them so amazingly strong and explosive for their small size. But an extremely flexible spine combined with the ability to dislocate key joints means they can still fit into very small, narrow spaces, presumably an adaptation allowing them to hunt small rodents that burrow and hide out in underground dens. Which I assume is why they have the instinct to immediately jump into and check out any box or cabinet or other enclosed space you open. You never know if there might be some voles in there.
They actually prefer to jump in a box because to them, it's a safe space to hide and watch. Cats look for spaces like that because their wild ancestors (and feral cats now) are small enough that they are both predators and prey.
Yup. Same reason why they like to climb to high places. They can feel safe and survey the surroundings. Additionally, cats will hide in confined spaces when ill or in pain; a sudden desire to hide for prolonged periods is a sign that it needs to see a vet.
I think a lot of oddities we attribute to cats can be explained by the fact that they are both predator and prey. No other animal we spend a lot of time with occupies such a schizophrenic position in the food chain.
I've noticed free-range chickens have some characteristics that derive from a similar position; chickens are not "predators" but they will happily predate if the opportunity arises, and they are also prey. Being birds and natural flock animals, it manifests differently, and there's some interesting behaviors I've noticed.
"Chicken" as a synonym for "total, utter coward" is slander. Yes, running is their first play, but they do not just roll over and die like a sheep or a rabbit; if running isn't working they can and do fight back for all they are worth. And they don't have to be "backed into a corner" and only fight if it's the absolute last option, it just has to be as I phrased it: "running isn't working".
We owned a small chicken that roamed in our garden, but not long after we got that chicken our neighbors got a cat.
We were worried their cat would attack our chicken at some point, until one day we saw their cat running for its life while a small chicken chases after it trying to keep up with the agile predator using its tiny chicken legs.
From that day forward the neighbor's cat understood its place in the pecking order.
A cat is like a small tiger. Ferocious at times, but mostly very cautious. If something doesn't work as planned, their default reaction is to abort asap.
A chicken is literally a dinosaur.
Also the cat was probably well fed. A hungry cat may not retreat so readily.
> From that day forward the neighbor's cat understood its place in the pecking order
Genius phrasing!
That is the literal meaning of the term - the hierarchical behaviour of a flock.
I know. That’s why it’s a great choice of phrase.
A rooster in full on attack mode can be pretty scary.
[flagged]
> actually
I spit my coffee out
> You never know if there might be some voles in there
I like to think I always know if there might be some voles in my boxes and cabinets.
That's just what the voles want you to think.
My cat often lays down twisted 180 degrees or more. Just doing whatever they want, defying laws of nature.
Well, dogs also do this—I present to you my majestically twisted creature: https://imgur.com/a/5WcYzSw
I have no clue how that is even possible.
Brought memories of one of my cats (now silent meow) who also added the Italian equivalent of a middle finger.
https://imgur.com/a/GFukfFP
I'm also stupefied by a human doing it. https://imgur.com/a/W7bcLZo
Taken from: https://www.gq.com/story/aleksei-goloborodko-real-life-diet
Yeah, nope. If I get like that, I'm never coming back. Probably have to bury me in that pose.
Is this really just a matter of stretching? I read the article and he sums it down to he needs to stretch every day (he said himself thst his diet doesn't matter too much) He was also in the circus since 4, but this doesn't seems like something I could do in a lifetime of practice.
You probably couldn't. There are lots of forms of hyper mobility, and extreme versions come with health risks. With practice and training you can probably do a lot more than you imagine, but for most of us the whole "fold yourself in half backwards" thing is beyond the limits of our spine, and it's for the best.
No, it's not just down to stretching although I remember being told that as a kid when asking about "snake ladies" in circuses. Yes, the stretching and training is necessary but all the stretching and training in the world won't help you bend like this. Some people simply have hypermobilities (often from connective tissue disorders) and these can allow them to bend themselves into a pretzel. The stretching and training is as much for learning how to take it to such extremes as it is for learning how to do it (relatively) safely. Of course these conditions can still often lead to complications and often have other negative impacts like chronic pain, frequent bruising, slower healing and a tendency to dislocate various joints.
Your dog is the inverse of the Firefox.
My Shiba Inu does all kinds of similar things. He also doesn't hesitate at all when trying narrow spaces. He only hesitates once he's all the way in and realize he can't go any further nor turn around so he has to back up completely back out.
I almost sprayed all my tea to my monitor and keyboard.
Wish both of you a happy and derpy life together.
Mine managed to fit into this tiny basket, all by himself: https://i.imgur.com/htIw6ZV.jpeg
Clearly your dog has been possessed by a demon.
majestic indeed!
Dog Yoga
Doga.
When I pick up my cat and he's relaxed, it feels like I'm picking up a tube sock full of pudding.
We joke that our small cat (she's old but small framed and lightweight) can put her entire body weight into every individual paw at the same time when she wants. You can pick her up and she'll weigh next to nothing and she can run over you like a feather but she can also simultaneously have four lead columns for legs if she wants to. I'm convinced cats are four dimensional or something.
My 3 cats are all completely different in this regard.
Cat 1: Fairly timid, very cautious cat, is remarkably light-footed. If she jumps on my bed and starts wandering along my back while I'm trying to sleep you barely notice she's there... that is until she has started hitting me in the face with her paw.
Cat 2: Smaller more hardy cat is a bit more heavy footed, slightly less cautious, but she seems to make some attempt to be light footed.
Cat 3: By far our biggest cat - and also the offspring of Cat #2. Does not try to be light footed at all. He just stomps around. If he climbs on to me, will put all his weight on his front 2 paws, and causes immense discomfort, as he stands there figuring out what he wants to do.
I love them all the same
I'm convinced cats violate energy conservation, because they can shed an infinite amount of fur.
A stray cat I adopted as we could not find his owner was named "Beanbag" (transitioning to "Mr Bean", no reference to the comedian)for exactly this quality.
After a few days of recovery and starting to get comfortable, he started to snooze and literally poured off the couch, like a bag of beans... and he loved to stretch in my lap while I coded, putting up with all the typing & mousing... Truly liquid, indeed! Wonderful little guy, I still miss him.
Horse is practically all air. That's their secret. They are blimps with legs.
I only went ridding a couple of times when I was a kind but the thing I remember is you'd start off on a ride ... then stop, tighten the saddle, start again and continue on the ride. Though I think maybe we'd do that twice.
The other thing I remember is that brushing down horses was kind of fun - though I'll be honest at the end of the day I never really trusted those animals; they were just too damn big for my tastes.
Are you sure you're not talking about birds?
My cat can sleep with its head upside-down event if there's no apparent reason for it to do that. I have another cat tough, which is tough, heavy but small, and resisting any external force, also keeping his claws open.
yes i think this model of cats is exactly right. kind of like how our fingertips would just be lumpy sacs without fingernails, cats seem to have structure and flexibility in the way that like a tent does.
I, for one, know, understand and welcome our almost liquid feline overlords.
Purring bags of mostly water.
Missing a cite to some pioneering work on this in the 30s by A.S.J. Tessimond [1]
Cats no less liquid than their shadows
Offer no angles to the wind.
They slip, diminished, neat through loopholes
Less than themselves; will not be pinned
[1]https://www.blueridgejournal.com/poems/asjt-cats.htm
Not to mention Fardin, 2014.
These are old news for those of us that grew bonsai kittens in the late 90s.
https://web.archive.org/web/20050203111131/http://bonsaikitt...
Obviously it was a hoax, probably one of the first ones reaching the first generation of internet users. But lots of people fell for it.
I mean, if you compare with what unspeakable things dog breeders have done to dogs over time, bonsai kittens don't seem that much of a stretch.
They're more of a squash, if anything
I wish they did this experiment with two slits to see if cats behaved (almost) like particles and/or (almost) like waves
Those would need to be very low-energy cats. You wouldn't be able to look at them for a very, very long time.
If my quick math is correct, for the de Broglie wavelength of a cat to be comparable to its width, it would need to be travelling no faster than about 10^-33 m/s.
It went through one, then it came back through the other playing catch with its own tail..
No, it just ran into the room, spun around, and ran back out. There was no evident reason to do so.
I think it would be impossible to herd enough cats to pull that off. A sort of proof by contradiction if you will.
Oh but that is old news!
"On the Rheology of Cats":
https://www.drgoulu.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Rheology-...
Now that is what a dry academic paper about cats is supposed to look like. Cat pictures on every page.
My cat woke up, did a big stretch, and yawned. Then she hiccoughed, turned into a small dragon, and coughed up a fireball.
"!!!" I said.
"What?" She shrugged back into cat form.
"You're a shape shifter?"
"All cats are. There's just never any reason to not be a cat."
/src https://mastodon.art/@MicroSFF/112928631782738642
> If the opportunity was given to them, dogs opted for a detour in the case of uncomfortably small apertures
Except in the case of one very sweet but not exactly brilliant large dog I know that legitimately believes his entire body is just the tip of his nose that he can see. I’ve seen him walk straight through a 2” hole in a screen door, and he will repeatedly try to sit on e.g. a chair armrest and not understand why it doesn’t work.
Having 7 cats, they are all different. My oldest mail holds himself rigid. The youngest male - still a kitten - is a noodle of murder and destruction.
Nice Description. A black noodle just joined our other 5 cats.
Black cats are the best. She is one of two sisters (oldest cats at 9 at this point). 17 pounds of chunk loving. Annoying as all get out, but will literally roll around on the arm of the couch and “accidentally” drop into my lap.
My wife and I go between two locations, today will be the first time 4 of the cats meet the murder noodle.
We had two cats, and my wife wanted more. I was happy with two, so we compromised and now we have four of them.
The feeding logistics of four, one with a special diet, are difficult. I can't imagine having seven of them long-term, especially the litter boxes. I've fostered kittens before, so I had nine cats in the house and it felt like all I did for those weeks was feed cats and scoop poop.
Interesting because I have recently been trying to catch a stray cat for a capture-release process and the cat will not walk into a typical trap-door type wire mesh trap. Watching him on video the roof of the trap seems to freak him out. It seems a better trap would have a narrow gap with high door that lets them confidently walk into the trap and trigger would just block the slot perhaps with some sort of sliding door blocking the exit.
The overhead view of figure 3 in particular is noteworthy to me. The 3 human subjects are represented as abstract ovals, and the cat drawn as a cat who is staring up as if to look through the fourth ceiling at the reader.
The reader becomes, in a sense, a greeble.
This paper would have been a fun project for a scientific illustrator.
For reference, in the cat realm a greeble is what cats are looking at when they stare up at the ceiling or wall and there is nothing there. At least that you can see.
So instead of the real cat staring at the imaginary greeble, we the reader are the real greeble staring at the imaginary cat. Who is staring back because it can see us.
There's no mention of their whiskers, I was under the impression that this is what they use to become aware of their body size in tight spaces.
Wiskers are mentioned, but using the scientific name - vibrissae
> their free-floating, diminutive collarbones allow them to squeeze themselves through very narrow gaps.
Detached collarbones is one of the many interesting things I know about cats because of my cat obsessed kid!
In addition to the vibrissae explanation, I also wonder if their eyes (vertical pupils) just see better when it comes to height and not width, necessitating greater hesitation when it comes to judging things at their height and not high in the air. I am thinking they might need to move their head or eyes a bit side to side, though it may still be too fast to be readily apparent to the researcher. Relevant article [1]:
"If you have a vertical slit, you're very likely to be an ambush predator," says Banks. That's the kind of animal who lies in wait and then leaps out to kill. He says these predators need to accurately judge the distance to their prey, and the vertical slit has optical features that make it ideal for that.
But that rule only holds if the animal is short, so its eyes aren't too high off the ground, Sprague says."
Ergo, cats have vertical pupils but tigers have round pupils. The tiger can probably judge horizontal distances better than the cat.
1 - https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/08/07/4301496...
The title made me click, and the content was enjoyable. But I still don't think clickbait like this should be present in scientific papers.
It's something about how scientific papers are not "for pleasure", they're informational tools. An easter egg in a game is cool right, but an easter egg in a graphics driver? That's the distinction I'm making here.
I am so puzzled by this attitude. People are free to make any distinction they want, the way they want, but the representation you have of a scientific literature is erroneous.
Scientific articles are informational tools that report results of experiments and nothing more. If the results are interesting to the peers, they are published. By they are not world's laws made paper unless sufficient replications are made. This means that each article need to be read with the context of the literature in mind and with a critical eye. Each are a single point of evidence to a phenomena.
Hence, there are subjective informational tools, written toward a specific audience (the experts of the domains) to inform of a specific result in a specific case.
On top of that, their are specific journal/issues where these types submissions are allowed. Don't read these submissions if you are looking for serious "information tools"
Scientific literature must be handled the same way as legal literature. If you are not a law expert, you ask a lawyer. If you think you are a legal expert when you are not, surprising consequences may arise.
In universities, they are classes dedicated to handling the scientific literature. They are provided for a reason.
So please, don't use cat's physic for liquid simulation in game engine... or please do?
Let's imagine someone interested in the biology of cats and felines at large. A specialized biologist. They might choose to personally catalog all publications which have use for them, like this article surely might.
But in their catalog of articles, one will have the title: Cats are (almost) liquid
And this is cute, slightly funny, but not correct. From an informational standpoint, this is not related to whether or not cats are liquid. From a material standpoint they consist of both solid, liquid and even gaseous substances. (to the extent we can consider co2 a part of their bodily function)
In a newspaper or such, this would not be a problem, you read it, enjoy it, and move on. But not for serious science. A dry and purely objective title is better in that case, just like how a function should be named based on what it does, not based on some meme regarding what it does.
The paper could be named: Awareness of body flexibility among cats. A function should be named get_employee(), not get_luser().
And the reason why this is true, is because the fad of naming a function get_luser() will become "not worth it" the day someone who didn't understand the meme comes across it, and has to ask you about it. Again especially if you're making a driver/library, something to be used by many, not by just yourself or a few others. And also, the "funny" aspect of it will present a mental hurdle. Instead of simply calling get_employee() in your new context, you will be calling get_luser(), and laughing for a bit and thinking about the bofh comics. Train of thought is lost.
The human mind is limited, and attempting to "capture" it attention leads to an attention arms race. And this arms race leads to tiktok. Which is why we use dry naming for serious pursuits.
This sounds like something Karl Pilkington would come up with.
Maybe an extension of monkey news, it could be cat news
Much easier: A cat only knows about the size of its head. If the head fits through, the body will do also. That's extremely easy to guess for a cat, no body awareness, just head radius awareness
I watched as a cat dove through a narrow opening (stair baulsters)only to wedge its aft end,stop dead,do a totaly ignoble face plant,and then sort of oooze through to land gracelessly. So in this case there was no hesitation,and cats regularly missjudge and get run over by cars,so at best the data is just that...data.
Cats cannot be defined as liquid, as liquid is a scientific classification based in the laws of physics, and cats are widely known for not particularly caring about obeying the laws of physics.
https://x.com/alex_wohlrab/status/1512750950330642432
This seems relevant: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lastquarte...
When a cat can go between two openings that are too small for the cat to pass through and the cat isn't being observed is what's interesting though and nobody has yet explained that.
Anecdotally my cat is always very cautious before going through cat flags, which are not particularly narrow but very short, but never hesitate to run into narrow but deep stuff...
I accidentally closed a very heavy door on my childhood cat and thought I killed it but it just bounced back and was perfectly fine.
We need a documentary.
There is one! "The secret life of cats", see https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4026336/
See also "Inside the Mind of a Cat" on Netflix. Kid-friendly and investigates whiskers, trainability, other topics.
I wonder if the same experiment could be done with big cats - Would an opening that touches the mane of a lion have the same results?
The cat will just get annoyed - it's a shaggy tangly thing that always gets in the way.
Speaking from personal experience >:3
This science paper could have been a cat meme video. Never thought I would be saying that and meaning it literally.
I mean I’ve seen the cat challenge meme video done a dozen times.
https://youtu.be/O7PkYkXdKwc?si=-8BTPVvAK19WVEF
This is like “hey what if this cat video was a research paper”
I'm more amazed that the authors could cite 52 references of similar studies!
Feels like a candidate for the Ig Nobel prize - and this is high praise!
related (german) https://noe.orf.at/stories/3272194/
It's a pretty common recommendation to not leave the windows open like that :/. Poor thing.
This is why they flow out of our grasp.
Obligatory Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/catsareliquid/.
See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z30eLocTnU
[flagged]
"Almost" is a bit vague and probably too strong, but they are mostly water, just like other mammals.
Therefore they are more properly classified as soups.
Noted ontologist Pirate Software would argue that cats are a Wellington, not a soup.
https://youtube.com/shorts/MnAegCmJ7Xk
I can't refute his logic.
[flagged]
What false flagging campaign are you referring to? I am not familiar.
He's taken down at least a dozen videos criticizing him by using his position as a youtuber with a million+ subscribers. Originally it was just videos referencing his "maldavius figtree" fursona, but now it's anything that portrays him in a negative way.
Whoa he's a furry? That's crazy. I should've known though when I heard that he made big money selling Second Life content back in the day.
Man, what a lore drop
Save for their skeletons and other dry structures like hair and shells, animals are in fact gels.
Maybe they're more broth-like? Also the paper at https://www.drgoulu.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Rheology-... seems to indicate that they are "active rheological materials" and therefore probably non-Newtonian.
That's a lot of ambiguity for a scientific paper. Even if it's true (Cats are about 60-70% water), that's not the point of the title.
I suspect its because it makes for a catchy headline.
Catchy headline, but also in a fluid in a dynamical sense - cats "flow" into spaces when exploring by trial-and-error testing openings with their body size, but they are also only "almost" liquid in that for especially narrow openings they are reluctant to poke their heads in, presumably because they might get stuck.
The contrast with dogs in the introduction is instructive: dogs tend to hunt over open fields rather than chasing prey into narrow dens, so it makes sense they would tend to make conservative eyeball judgments about whether they can fit into certain spaces. But cats will try to corner their prey in a tunnel/etc, so they have good reason to rely more on touch and experimentation ("ecologically-valid strategy").
I agree. I think it's a bit of nod into the playfulness most associate with cats. I don't mind though, cats are one subject I'm okay with some leeway in the rigorousness of the article title.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
The early networks that evolved into the modern Internet were mostly paid for with public funds, and they’re used nowadays mostly to watch cat videos. I don’t see anyone complaining about that /)
I complain about it frequently, actually, in context of commercial use and the "commons" the Internet is founded on.
These things also don't compare.
Complaining about commercial use is not the same as complaining about the cat videos.
Comparing the advent of the internet with a study on the flexibility and agility of cats in tight spaces isn't exactly apples to apples.
no, it might lead to better surgery robots, search and rescue robots, and countless things that I'm not even capable of imagining.
you are the one comparing apples to oranges - the internet has been around for 50 years and has shown its value - this one has just been published!
> no, it might lead to better surgery robots, search and rescue robots,
No, that's extremely optimistic, at best. We've learned that cats seem to use their knowledge of their height but not width when choosing to go (or not) through a hole.
That's it. We're promised follow-up research because it might be that, other than height, they also know and use their additional characteristics, like weight.
That's all. Are you seriously suggesting this knowledge might be helpful in building "surgery robots"?
> and countless things that I'm not even capable of imagining.
Maybe. Are the chances of that enough to justify the expense? Couldn't this work be done more cost-effectively (it's about cats - the world is filled with guys who would do all the experiments for free, given instructions, just for their cat(s) to be in a scientific study...)? Especially since we're talking about Hungary, which is not a super-rich nation.
In any case, allocating funds for research is probably a very hard problem, and I know nothing about it. Still, questioning the expenses is something any taxpayer should be able to do. Just give me good reasons why it had to cost $120k to feed 30 cats for a few weeks, and I'll be happily on my way.
have you tried asking them? researchers are often happy to explain their work!
I'm not that interested - I'm not from Hungary, if for no other reason.
However, the guy who started this thread did. While I don't think the authors of this particular study are on HN, I'd bet we have some scientists here who could respond because they are working in a similar area and have some insider knowledge.
Unfortunately, such guys won't see the question because the post is flagged and dead. I even vouched for that post, yet someone came and decided to flag it again. I have no idea why - as I said, questioning the cost-efficiency of a study should be something anybody can do.
> I'm not that interested
You've put a lot of effort on here which could have been used to get the information from the horse's mouth.
What effort? I just wrote two short comments. I also have no idea where to even begin getting the info from the horse's mouth in this case. Just getting ahold of a proper communication channel would be 1-2 orders of magnitude more effort than my comments here...
EDIT: again, I'm not that interested in the cost of this particular study - what made me comment was the negative reaction of many commenters to a legitimate, in my opinion, question at the start of this thread. I can both believe the question is legitimate and not be very interested in its answer, right? That's how it is.
What I'm trying to call out is that not all studies are equally valuable nor should they all be publicly funded. Would you at least agree me on that?
But how can you know ahead of time which studies are valuable and which are less so? What about metastudies? How do you quantify their worth?
Those are great questions worthy of debate. But we shouldn't just give up on those hard questions and say that all research is worthy of public funding should we?
Eh. It's not like research funding is unlimited. Institutions get a budget and they spend it on research projects how they see fit.
public funds are allocated by multiple experts in various fields checking applications are in line with government policy. if you think you can do better, I'd encourage you to run for election and set different policies. from what I can see, the system is working as intended.
HN literally posted a video on how broken the public funding system is (in Physics) days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41808127
This broken system doesn't just stop at Physics. If you watch the video, she does a great job at explaining what exactly is broken.
I'd love you to watch that video and then come back and explain to me why she is wrong and why the system is actually working well and as-intended.
I've seen the video - to be fair, theoretical physics is probably the cheapest thing to fund - they just need a supply of chalk. ultimately a lot of physics is a jobs program to keep physicists from going abroad and working on a foreign nuclear program.
seriously though, you should run for election on this platform!
> ultimately a lot of physics is a jobs program to keep physicists from going abroad and working on a foreign nuclear program.
Wow. Uh, citation needed.
NKFIH, grant # K143077 is not for this study specifically, searching for it reveals a number of studies the same grant supported, such as:
https://figshare.com/articles/media/You_talkin_to_me_Functio...
and
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632072...
That's right. This study falls under the parent grant entitled:
> Péter Pongrácz: The human as a limited resource - a new paradigm to understand social behavior in dogs (Eötvös Loránd University)
When asking these kinds of questions, I always remind myself "The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge" [0].
On the other hand, I believe that researching how animals think, behave and "work" in general, is a very important part of being human. They're alive, too, and they defy tons of prejudice we have about them over and over. We need to revise tons of knowledge about animals and other living things, in general.
[0]: https://www.ias.edu/sites/default/files/library/UsefulnessHa...
So what exactly is your criteria for when a study should or should not be publicly funded?
Good question.
I think if there's a large corpus of research supporting a hypothesis, any research retrying that hypothesis in an insignificant way can be disqualified from funding. If you challenge the hypothesis, or adding something significant to the dark areas of that hypothesis, you could be funded.
Moreover, if your research fails to prove that hypothesis, or proves the exact opposite, that should be also printed/published somewhere, because failing is equally important in science.
In short, tell us something we don't know in a provable way. That's it. This is what science is.
This is what I think with about your question with my Sysadmin/Researcher/Ph.D. hats combined.
Thanks for your kind response! Are you familiar with the Replication Crisis? What happens when most of the "hypothesis" being challenged can't be rightly replicated in the first place?
And what happens when the primary means of funding is attached the volume of papers and not the quality or impact, as is what I believe to be the case generally here in the US?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Hey, no problem. Yes, I'm familiar with it, and I work in/with projects which aims to create reproducible research (Galaxy, Zenodo, etc.). If you tell me that "I can make this unreproducible paper reproducible, but with a different process (or the same one), and share all the pipeline from dust to result", I'll tell you to go for it, and fund you.
At the end, if something is not reproducible, and you're testing reproducibility of that thing, it's illuminating a dark area of that hypothesis.
Measuring the quality of the research and its impact is not something I'm very familiar with to be honest, and I'm not from US, so I can't tell how universities push their people, however publish or perish is a real problem everywhere in the world.
We used to see citation numbers important, then cite-rings cropped up. We valued paper counts, then professors started to lend their names to papers in their areas for "free" advisory. Now we have more complex algorithms/methods, and now I'm more of a research institute person than an academic, and I don't know how effective these things are anymore.
But hey, I do research for fun and write papers now and then. Just to keep myself entertained to find reasons to learn something new.
Fair enough and all great points. I think we're more aligned than not on the fundamentals here. Folks seem to be reacting negatively to my even propositioning these questions without even having made a judgment on the merit of the study myself.
Yes, we agree in the fundamentals. The reality is, academia dynamics is very different w.r.t. to private sector, esp. startups. So, knowing how research works in academia is a bit of an unknown for people who're not interested in this line of work, or people who doesn't know how these things are done in general.
In short, the value proposition for a piece of research is very different depending on the lens you're looking through to that research.
Why are you asking us? I'm not a research scientist/funding expert. There are people whose job it is to decide that, and they decided it was. I trust them to do their jobs, just like they trust me to do my job when they need my services.
Why do you trust these people when for the most part, they are unelected bureaucrats serving their own self-interests?
Because it's not like that everywhere in the world. For example, here, to be able to get funding, you need to pass a panel interview of researchers who are experienced in the area of your research. Our system employs "hordes of research experts" to shake down most inadequate ones, and push the rest to the actual researchers to further filter them.
IIRC, many if not most EU countries employ similar methods.
> they are unelected bureaucrats serving their own self-interests
You seem to be pushing an agenda, not asking questions in good faith.
My agenda is that I think it's completely rationale to ask about the merits of publicly funded research and debate that topic. You may not like that question or my responses, but that is my assertion here.
> completely rational to ask about the merits of publicly funded research
Sure, but asking asking non-experts on some web forum to make guesses at the answers, and insulting the people whose job it is to do this work based on your assumptions of how it works, is a bad way to go about answering that question.
I was rooting against you in this exchange until you said this , because I took your initial plea for authority to be a cop out from joshmcginnis's argument, because I'm a human and have biases and sometimes put the quality of "earnestness" behind my beliefs above others' (i.e., whether I agree with them or not, my counterpart is equally sincere in what they believe in as me). That disposition is unwise and I think my realization of this underpins what I found striking about the comment that you just made.
In a way, I think this is what joshmcginnis is guilty of here...but I want to believe that he's aware that he's being provocative, but being provocative is the entire point. Your initial response of deference and the overall response that his comments are receiving from others are decent representations of how the mere questioning of certain institutions (online, pseudonymously, through relatively obscure channels) can be seen as problematic.
It is something like social science as performance art. Or the other way around?
There's an extremely annoying pattern you see a lot, where someone with a naive understanding of an extremely complicated topic will bust in and say "you are all idiots who are obviously doing it wrong!" without having any understanding of the deep, complex history of the topic. They think they know better than the experts, because they found what looks like an obvious, surface-level problem. After all, why haven't those idiots noticed this problem and fixed it??
If they're lucky, someone who actually knows what they're talking about will walk them through how it's actually a very complex topic, and what looked like an obvious problem is actually just a visible imperfect outcome of what is the best way we've managed to optimize the problem space. Others in this thread are taking this approach. Bless 'em.
But, I think it would be better if people didn't do this in the first place. Research funding is a super complicated topic involving hundreds of people and processes. No, it's not perfect, but it's the best approach we've got. If you want to improve a complex system, you need to go engage with it, understand how it works, understand how the problem occurred (if it even is a problem!), and find a way to fix it without making things worse. This is really hard work! Just busting into a topic and loudly complaining on some random web forum doesn't accomplish anything, except if you're lucky making someone else spoon-feed you the answers you could've found yourself.
Usually it's just ignorance, but sometimes it's more sinister, as it is also a useful approach for pushing an agenda to other non-expert readers. "Look how much money we waste on public science funding! We should reduce that funding. Look at these corrupt self-serving bureaucrats! We should put someone else in charge, and I know just who it should be." Hmm...
I agree with you in principle and I wouldn't want to allege the entirety of what you've said to joshuamcginnis's approach or motives. But I agree with you in principle.
I can also see how any perceived conflict in the top-down relationship between authoritative institutions and the general population can frustrate a person (i.e., a member of the general populace), especially when the institutions are portrayed as vague identities ("the experts") and the complexities that they operate under are a part of a broader network of institutions and entities that themselves seem to thrive under incongruence with respect to the said top-down relationship.
So to draw attention to an issue in a frustrating matter, can be seen as a natural human response. At times it may even be necessary. If not, then we reach a point where we wind up denying of their natural inclination to be frustrated with what they perceive to be (and quite often) an injustice to society, irrespective of class distinctions. And a person does not necessarily need to be an "expert" to point or argue against that.
Not everyone is willing to resign themselves to "it's the best we've got", if that's not what they believe and resignation, or willful engagement with a system perceived to be corrupt, is tantamount to affirming the system itself, which is unimaginable and even more frustrating (read: insanity-inducing).
I say all of this, assuming good faith and not from the perspective of ill intent or ignorance that you've presented (which again, I agree with in principle).
Pardon the commas.
This whole thread started because you implied this study was worthless. Would be interested to hear your criteria.
It's entirely rational and reasonable for someone to at least ask and receive a decent response to the question, "Why should my tax dollars have been used to funded this research?" Academia should have great responses lined up which garner continued support from the public.
But the fact that we aren't even allowed to ask questions without immediately being shut down as dissenters of all publicly funded research is problematic.
Public research should absolutely be at least partially evaluated by the very people funding it to begin with.
Hungarians aren’t brutish optimizers who cut costs and strive for uniformity and blandness; they are not like those philistines that know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. Or else they wouldn’t speak Hungarian.
Even better that it got published in Cell.
Wait until you learn about something called "the military"
Here's the podcast: https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/52350e74-f4b0-42d9-a1...