I've sent a lengthy email to Atomic Rockets strongly suggesting that cloaking devices are back on the menu. No reply yet and I know I've said this a few dozen times before but I really think we got 'em this time!
The tldr is that they don't know it's alphabetic for sure (see below quote). The main scholar (Glenn Schwartz) who co-oversaw the '94-'10 excavation isn't an expert in writing. He put it out there around 2010 and said "maybe it's alphabetic, idk" and there was not much followup from the community. So he consulted with some writing experts who helped him with the 2021 paper where he goes over the evidence for different possibilities and suggests that the strongest argument is for alphabetic. The dating seems to be on firmer ground but the error bands on this and Wadi el-Hol can probably knock a century or two off the "500 years".
A decent summary is the blog post below from another researcher who briefly was part of the same dig and a former student of Schwartz (so not entirely independent):
It is worth noting that in the past Schwartz has been reluctant to affirm that the four inscribed clay cylinders from Tomb 4 of Umm el-Marra are alphabetic (Schwartz 2010). Thus, he certainly did not rush to this conclusion. Moreover, his most recent article about these is also very cautious (Schwartz 2021), as he moves through various possibilities (as discussed above). But it is clear that he is now willing to state that this is the most reasonable position (i.e., it is Early Alphabetic). And I concur. That is, the most reasonable conclusion is that the Umm el-Marra clay cylinders are inscribed with signs that are most readily understood as Early Alphabetic letters (graphemes). Moreover, since the Early Alphabetic alphabet was used to write Semitic, it is logical to conclude that this is the language of the Umm el-Marra inscriptions (the fact that they were found in Syria would also augment this conclusion, of course).
The full blog post is worth reading and summarizes the case for various non-alphabetic possibilities.
I admit I didn't have time to read this blog post deeply, but it doesn't sound very convincing. It doesn't bring any EVIDENCE that this is an alphabet it just cites other cases of possible alphabets in Mesopotamia and the near East [1].
Besides that, this blog post mentions some morphological characteristics of the inscriptions that make the author believe the writing is alphabetic, but it fails to mention these characteristics. I don't doubt Rollston has good reasons for this statement, but the claims behind them need to be published and reviewed. I'm not sure if this is the case (and I do not have access to the 2021 article).
[1] This includes the Lachish Dagger I tried to look up, but its dating seems disputed, but even the earliest proposed date (the 17th century) is more recent than the Wadi el-Hol inscriptions, so I'm not entirely sure what it is supposed to prove, except perhaps an earlier spread of the Alphabet from Egypt and the Sinai peninsula to Canaan proper?
That's because it's not a strong conclusion. It's a "better than the alternatives" hypothesis. Repeating my tldr above "they don't know it's alphabetic".
> doesn't bring any EVIDENCE .. some morphological characteristics of the inscriptions
I'd say the "morphological characteristics of the inscriptions" count as evidence and I'll just recap everything linked that I think counts as evidence: the graphemes include several repetitions even with only 12 signs in total; they don't resemble cuneiform at all; they have a weak resemblances to some Egyptian glyphs but weak and Egypt didn't have these clay cigars; they have a weak resemblance to some Indus glyphs and (later) Byblos glyphs but again weak; they don't appear to be numbers, potmarks, etc.; but what they do strikingly resemble is later alphabetic signs, to the point where the author, one of the foremost experts on Semitic epigraphy, really wanted the dating to be wrong.
Now the blog post doesn't go into much detail on these items but Schwartz's 20+ page 2021 paper (I had no trouble getting a free, legal copy) does (not always a lot more detail but also covers more possible alternatives). But, like the blog post says, the case Schwartz 2021 makes is still extremely cautious and he basically concludes that we just have to hope we can find more examples to confirm what kind of system they are from, and to increase the chance of deciphering them.
How is it better than the alternative "we have a set of symbol and we don't know what it means"? I really think there is a merit in saying "with this sample size, every theory we put out has low confidence level".
With 12 signals in total, it's very hard to show patterns that are in line with an alphabet. I don't think that with this sample size you can make a very strong claim that the chance that this is an alphabet is higher than the chance is that these symbol serve any other kind of purpose (including being a non-language). The main claim seems to be that repetition (what kind? I'm a quite disappointed the blog post has no transcritions, considering it's just 12 symbols we're talking about!) makes the chance that this is an alphabet higher. The rest of the claims (it doesn't resemble cuneiform, doesn't seem to be derived from hieroglyphs and doesn't seem related to any other script) are meaningless. The resemblence for later Canaanite alphabetic signs is interesting, and could probably be more convincing if we had a larger sample size.
So in the end, if we are convinced by these claims, we're basically saying something like "We have at most 1% confidence for every other theory, but we've got 2% confidence that this is an independent development of the alphabet that may have inspired the Canaanite alphabet we've seen 500 later". Higher confidence that is still far below the threshold doesn't cut it.
Now, I'm pretty sure the original article did not put the theory in these terms, but the headline is somewhat sensationalist, and the way it was picked up in newspapers is even worse, for instance:
Scientific American: World's Oldest Alphabet Found on an Ancient Clay Gift Tag
Stopping the press from misreporting science is a bit like trying to stop space rockets in midair with your bare hands, but even "Evidence of oldest known alphabetic writing unearthed in ancient Syrian city". The popular understanding of the word evidence is assumed to be "hard" evidence by default, not a weak evidence that bumps up the probability of a certain theory a little bit more.
I'll actually be quite excited if this turns out to be truly an alphabet encoding a Semitic language (it opens a lot of interesting questions and possibilities), but I'm not holding my breath for it.
I thought the article was fine, historically, as a pop travel article. You seem to have hate-read it because it wasn't encyoclopedic enough and left out some of your favorite bits of Arthurian trivia.
You seem to have missed my final point - it isn't about the trivia. The reason that Arthurian legend is so broad and encompassing, is because it's all fiction. That people should write new stories with it.
It isn't about what my favourite trivia is. It's that everyone can have their favourite bits.
I think the author's issue is he conflates feudalism, which is generally held to begin in the 10th century, with the entire medieval period, which is traditionally dated as starting in the late 5th century. He also thinks of feudalism as this static culturally defining force but in reality it waxed and waned depending on the time and place.
It also had some huge holes in who and what it covered, and it's not hard to imagine any of the OD&D classes (cleric, magic-user, fighting-man) in those gaps. The largest of these gaps by far was The Church, but we also have universities (which developed under protection of the church), guilds (which developed in places under protection of the universities), and the rising merchant class (who could form guilds to reinforce their power). There were also mercenaries, hermits and various other free people.
Now I feel happy there is such a place where that is this way and people live without worrying about where to live. Thank you for sharing this knowledge.
Yeah I also travel with a battery pack and, if I'm overseas, a pocket wifi. And my airpods, although lots of people like big headsets too. Apple also thinks their VR rig is great for air travel. So potentially 7-9 devices.
I'm personally not as bothered by the number of devices as much as all the forced redundancy. Like the core devices could have 3 desktop quality processors, 13 microphones, 3 selfie cameras, 2 rear cameras, 2-3 cellular modems, etc.
I'd love a design where the phone is my chip, 5g radio and storage. The camera can be worn as a bodycam (for lifestreaming or personal safety) but also docks to the phone. The phone speakers and mics are a 2nd set of airpods you can cycle in to keep them charged (both sets can be docked at once). The tablet is just a bigger screen with extra battery/storage and the phone docks to that. The watch screen is weaker and monochrome so the battery life is better and it keeps the health functions.
Speaking of 'grossly mischaracterizing' Volokh, why do you think he is "uniquely qualified" to weigh in here? Is it because your views usually align with his? He seems no more qualified than the sources mhneu provided. This decision has been soundly roasted across the spectrum.
> Speaking of 'grossly mischaracterizing' Volokh, why do you think he is "uniquely qualified" to weigh in here?
Volokh is a highly-credentialed subject matter expert whose work has been cited by the Supreme Court, and who has been working in first amendment and related law for decades.
His first book, in 2001, was "The First Amendment: Problems, Cases and Policy Arguments. New York: Foundation Press."
He published a 100+ page, peer-reviewed article covering this subject area in 2021:
> He seems no more qualified than the sources mhneu provided.
He's a great deal more qualified, but that's not the point. He hasn't weighed in on this decision at all yet, other than to note that it was released.
I swear, the amount of "motivated reading" by emotionally invested commenters has me seriously suspicious of anyone that holds a particularly strong legal position on this just-released decision. People do not appear to be thinking. At all.
> This decision has been soundly roasted across the spectrum.
It may very well be rebutted by Volokh, but if so, it won't be a "roasting", and his position will certainly be a great deal more erudite than "this judge is an idiot!"
I brought up Volokh in contrast with the random tech blogger's review of the decision that was cited by the (now great-great-great...-grant-parent post), because if a subject matter expert like Volokh has not yet had time to read and properly analyze the decision, there's simply no way "Mike Masnick" of "Techdirt" has.
Whether Hans cheated OtB is not really the main issue although most commenters get hung up on it.
Occam’s Razor suggests we should strongly believe he didn’t cheat OTB.
The bigger issue is that known cheaters create a cloud of suspicion that puts their opponents at a huge disadvantage. Magnus has spoken about this before - if you think someone might be cheating you can’t concentrate on chess.
This suspicion can be allayed with extra security but that extra security was only deployed after Magnus left.
> Whether Hans cheated OtB is not really the main issue although most commenters get hung up on it.
It’s not only the main issue. It’s pretty much the sole issue. The only other one I can see is how harshly Magnus should be sanctioned by FIDE for leaving a tournament without a valid reason and his little stint on Twitter.
> The bigger issue is that known cheaters create a cloud of suspicion that puts their opponents at a huge disadvantage. […] This suspicion can be allayed with extra security but that extra security was only deployed after Magnus left.
Magnus knew perfectly well how the game would be played and security was more than adequate before this game. Tournaments takes preventing cheating very seriously and the Sinquefield Cup is no exception.
There are tons of viable methods for cheating. I’ve heard the method of taking a break on a balcony and having a conspirator flash singles at you with car headlights. Or a cheating device in your shoes, or hidden in even more private places.
The point being is that if Hans really wanted to cheat OTB the security measures to stop him are rather inadequate. More theatre than anything.
Do I think he cheated OTB? No but he could have. There will always be that raised suspicion, that extra degree of doubt given Han’s repututation.
Maybe then we should increase security level in these events. Demand all the players to be naked, in locked rooms. With full body cavity search. Just to exclude any possibility. Do not them leave until game is over. Bucket can be provided if needed...
This person has been caught cheating in the past several times including for prize money tournament so it's much more likely they have cheated many other times and were not caught.
There are many ways you could cheat in a OTB match, most people don't understand how easy it would be, one of the ways you can tell someone is cheating is that they don't understand why their move was good, often computer lines are very unintuitive and moves sacrificing a piece without any positional or tactical compensation mean it has found an idea that requires calculating more moves ahead than any human can.
In the post game analysis hans gave, it was terrible, lines that he suggested often being 1 or 2 move blunders, not expanding on insanely complicated positions, but simply claiming "the chess speaks for itself" and misevaluating who is winning in many variations that were shown, often when deciding between two different lines how well you evaluate the end position is critical to picking the correct line.
I don't know if hans did cheat in this tournament, but if he didn't then he was quite actively giving the impression to the other players that he was, which has would give a huge psychological advantage, not because the opponent "can't concentrate on chess", but because if your opponent is offering you pawns or a piece for "free", in a game against a human you will take it, in a game against an engine taking it means you have already lost.
> if you think someone might be cheating you can’t concentrate on chess
I wonder how young players can concentrate on chess when they know if they suddenly win over the King then top chess entities can ban them from chess? And the fan base of the King will run after them all over the internet with threats?
Magnus just wanted to be more than a chess King. Evidently, it means being less than a honest human.
He hasn’t even said anything. All he has done is taken cryptic unexplained actions and released cryptic unexplained tweets.
If Magnus believes Hans cheated (again, that’s a big if because Magnus hasn’t said anything) and Magnus is actually correct that he cheated, even in that situation Magnus’s entire set of actions since he lost have been highly dishonest, since his entire communication strategy has been to leave cryptic messages that people can read anything into, without yet having made any clarifying statements.
I've sent a lengthy email to Atomic Rockets strongly suggesting that cloaking devices are back on the menu. No reply yet and I know I've said this a few dozen times before but I really think we got 'em this time!