Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dogs’ Eyes Have Changed Since Humans Befriended Them

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 122 posts

Re: Dogs’ Eyes Have Changed Since Humans Befriended Them

#81

Post by rhinoceraptor »

miahi wrote: post #34
Joakal wrote: post #26

This is a good opportunity to educate the general [HN] community about dogs: 1. They can only see blue/yellow. Not like humans' RGB. 2. They are short sighted. For far away objects, their sight is like a T-Rex, they can see moving objects, not stationary objects. Remain still, and they can't see you. Then again, they can smell you, especially if it's downwind. 3. Their flicker fusion threshold is higher than humans.…

3. The flicker fusion issue mostly applies to cathode ray displays and moving pictures. Many LCDs use flickering light (PWM) for backlight, but usually at more than 200Hz. Better LCDs use linear current sources for backlight, so there's no flicker at all. An LCD should be fine even for dogs when static images are displayed.

My dog will watch my LCD TV, she likes watching Minecraft and dog videos.

Re: Dogs’ Eyes Have Changed Since Humans Befriended Them

#82

Post by silvestrov »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #33
mattlondon wrote: post #28

The article (and others at e.g. the BBC) seem to say dogs "evolved" this capability in "a remarkably short time". Is it not fairer to suggest that this is not evolution/natural selection at work here, but rather just selective breeding? I can't think of another species of animal that has been so widely twisted and manipulated in appearance by human's selective breeding than dogs. Seems odd to suggest that this part o…

I'm mostly comfortable with thinking it's evolution as crazy variety and selective breeding came very late to the party. Most in the last few hundred years - lots of the breeds we know are from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. I would guess that for most of our co-existence breeding was up to the dog to figure out, which might explain the oldest breeds being of a particular region. Task breeds came very much later.…

> selective breeding came very late to the party

I think that breeding before 17th century was focused on the dogs job such as hunting wolves (Wolfhounds), sheep herding (Border Collies), watch dogs.

When you don't breed for apperance and only have a low number of different kinds of jobs for dogs, then you only need very few breeds.

The Irish Wolfhounds were out of jobs in 1786 (no more wolves in Ireland) and the breed practically died out.

Re: Dogs’ Eyes Have Changed Since Humans Befriended Them

#83

Post by ken »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #2

Dogs' eyes don't generally look sad, especially if they're quizzically raising one eyebrow. Why change the title from the much more interesting, and accurate original? "Dogs’ Eyes Have Changed Since Humans Befriended Them" I was actually expecting a dire clickbait sort of article, when it actually turns out to be substantive and interesting.

The "Sad" version is in the . That usually means that is the original, and they changed the .

Re: Dogs’ Eyes Have Changed Since Humans Befriended Them

#84

Post by NeedMoreTea »

gilad wrote: post #66
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #2

Dogs' eyes don't generally look sad, especially if they're quizzically raising one eyebrow. Why change the title from the much more interesting, and accurate original? "Dogs’ Eyes Have Changed Since Humans Befriended Them" I was actually expecting a dire clickbait sort of article, when it actually turns out to be substantive and interesting.

[poster here]: Interesting find - my phone showed the title as 'Why Do Dogs Look So Sad?', where the actual article's title is different. Looking at the page's source code under the tag shows these are different. I chose the shorter version (nevermind dropping the 'so' in 'so sad' cause that's really click-bait-y). My assumption was that readers would know that the source (the Atlantic) is a reputable publication and…

Hm, never knew Atlantic played that game too. I know Ars A/B tests titles, and that a few of the buzzfeed type publications put a social title (ie clickbait fest) for the first day or two while a piece does the rounds of Facebook and Twitter, and replace with a sane "forever" search engine title later.

At the other extreme there's the odd dry-as-dust titled technical article that really needs some editorialising or at least posting on sub-head to have any chance of interest.

Re: Dogs’ Eyes Have Changed Since Humans Befriended Them

#85

Post by alistairSH »

omni wrote: post #69
mschuster91 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about a cat instead ;) Seriously, dogs are a shitload of work and especially, no matter how fucked the weather outside is, you gotta take the dog to walks so that the dog can take a dump. In addition, many of the larger breeds are working dogs which means that they require massive amounts of attention and daily exercise so they don't literally go mad. Please do proper research upon the characteristics of your d…

This meme of not getting rescue dogs is so harmful and needs to stop. Good adoption agencies will foster the dogs for a while and let you know if the dog actually has behavioral issues. Plenty of them don't. I'm convinced my rescue's previous owner was a little old lady who died or something. He has no issues at all. Every time I look at my amazing rescue dog (my first dog ever) and think about how he was almost put…

You're both correct.

It's not purebred vs rescued mutt. It's the age of the dog and whether or not it was mistreated and developed problems that new owners are unlikely to know how to fix.

Young rescues are usually fine.

As you noted, a good rescue agency will do their homework before placing dogs. Not all rescues are good.

And of course, all dogs should be put through a puppy skills course of some sort, even if they're not puppies. Most pet stores and many boarding facilities run classes. They're as much for the owner as the animal.

I've owned three dogs as an adult, the first two from breeders, the 3rd from a rescue. The rescue has had more behavioral issues than the two I raised as puppies. All the behavioral issues are directly linkable to his previous owner (a puppy mill, where he was kept crated most of the day). It's been a TON of work to get him to a point where he's mostly well-adjusted (and I knew going in this would be true). If he had been my first dog, he likely would have been my last as well.

Re: Dogs’ Eyes Have Changed Since Humans Befriended Them

#86

Post by canadapups »

omni wrote: post #69
mschuster91 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about a cat instead ;) Seriously, dogs are a shitload of work and especially, no matter how fucked the weather outside is, you gotta take the dog to walks so that the dog can take a dump. In addition, many of the larger breeds are working dogs which means that they require massive amounts of attention and daily exercise so they don't literally go mad. Please do proper research upon the characteristics of your d…

This meme of not getting rescue dogs is so harmful and needs to stop. Good adoption agencies will foster the dogs for a while and let you know if the dog actually has behavioral issues. Plenty of them don't. I'm convinced my rescue's previous owner was a little old lady who died or something. He has no issues at all. Every time I look at my amazing rescue dog (my first dog ever) and think about how he was almost put…

It is not a meme. Rescue dogs often have issues. While not all, probably >50% in my personal ~10 dog sample size. At 50% it is worth a warning to new dog owners and shouldn't be outright dismissed.

Rescue dogs are usually surrendered because the owner didn't train them. So even excluding any emotional issues, the dog has to be broken of bad habits. A new puppy won't soil where it sleeps, so house training is easy. But a dog that's been locked up most of it's life will, and extra effort in training is needed... not the best for a new dog owner.

Re: Dogs’ Eyes Have Changed Since Humans Befriended Them

#87

Post by sandworm101 »

Joakal wrote: post #26

This is a good opportunity to educate the general [HN] community about dogs: 1. They can only see blue/yellow. Not like humans' RGB. 2. They are short sighted. For far away objects, their sight is like a T-Rex, they can see moving objects, not stationary objects. Remain still, and they can't see you. Then again, they can smell you, especially if it's downwind. 3. Their flicker fusion threshold is higher than humans.…

>>> Then again, they can smell you, especially if it's downwind.

Only if the dog is downwind. Contrary to repeated myths about bears, no animal can air-scent objects downwind of themselves.

Re: Dogs’ Eyes Have Changed Since Humans Befriended Them

#88

Post by canadapups »

alistairSH wrote: post #85
omni wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This meme of not getting rescue dogs is so harmful and needs to stop. Good adoption agencies will foster the dogs for a while and let you know if the dog actually has behavioral issues. Plenty of them don't. I'm convinced my rescue's previous owner was a little old lady who died or something. He has no issues at all. Every time I look at my amazing rescue dog (my first dog ever) and think about how he was almost put…

You're both correct. It's not purebred vs rescued mutt. It's the age of the dog and whether or not it was mistreated and developed problems that new owners are unlikely to know how to fix. Young rescues are usually fine. As you noted, a good rescue agency will do their homework before placing dogs. Not all rescues are good. And of course, all dogs should be put through a puppy skills course of some sort, even if they…

> Not all rescues are good.

Yes. Any one can call themselves a rescue. And rescues can have a wide variety of beliefs and procedures.

Re: Dogs’ Eyes Have Changed Since Humans Befriended Them

#89

Post by noiv »

mattlondon wrote: post #28

The article (and others at e.g. the BBC) seem to say dogs "evolved" this capability in "a remarkably short time". Is it not fairer to suggest that this is not evolution/natural selection at work here, but rather just selective breeding? I can't think of another species of animal that has been so widely twisted and manipulated in appearance by human's selective breeding than dogs. Seems odd to suggest that this part o…

Well, humans are part of the environment of dogs - selecting or not.

Re: Dogs’ Eyes Have Changed Since Humans Befriended Them

#90

Post by vectorEQ »

vanderZwan wrote: post #47
Joakal wrote: post #26

This is a good opportunity to educate the general [HN] community about dogs: 1. They can only see blue/yellow. Not like humans' RGB. 2. They are short sighted. For far away objects, their sight is like a T-Rex, they can see moving objects, not stationary objects. Remain still, and they can't see you. Then again, they can smell you, especially if it's downwind. 3. Their flicker fusion threshold is higher than humans.…

> As well, did you know lights have a flicker? If you think it's bad, it's even worse for dogs which can lead to stress. As someone who notices and gets really tired from the stroboscopic effects of cheap LEDs, I can only imagine how terrible that must be for dogs

try candles. natural light for me gives me least issues. most electric lights are exhausting...
Post reply on HN