Hacker News Reader

Comment by pegasus | Hacker News Reader

I would expect a lot more variability if this would be the purpose. For example, instead of corner balls, why not be a little creative and make them cones. Also, the holes in the faces always being of different sizes is peculiar. Then there's the icosahedron with balls of different sizes. Reading the wikipedia page only deepens the sense of mystery, but some use in astrological divination or the like seems most plausible to me.

View on HN

Expecting variability is a weak argument in my book. If there is some benchmark for skill, like a dovetail joint, the craftsperson is not going to "go rogue" but rather show the discipline required to exactly recreate this thing.

(So many modelers try to recreate the Millennium Falcon from scratch for example when, given their skills at modeling, I've never understood why they all just don't go off and come up with a creation of their own design. But it's kind of a Hello World for modeling perhaps?)

While I don't endorse this particular theory, considering that something like a gotshall block or a fizzbuzz is proof of a certain skillset, it is certainly possible the corner balls being cones is not a comparable proof of work

Still doesn't make sense to me. Those programming tasks have to be a certain way because they have a very specific use outside of the testing. If that's what you imply, then we're none the wiser, still having left unexplained what that use might be.

In the masterproof example, the purpose of the sphered joint is whether the maker can draw and round every sphere while not compromising the rest of the shape. It is not the end shape that is important, it is how the craftsperson is able to execute it

Reply on news.ycombinator.com