My dad was a heroin addict, and while he eventually got (mostly) clean, he wryly joked to me once "you know there aren't a ton of old heroin users for a reason"
Using street drugs kills - we can put people on opiates if done in a controlled way, for the rest of their lives, we instead have gone down the road of prohibition, closing off pathways for people to get maintenance dosing of opiates.
So I dont think we should but doing regime change - however the ones you cited appear to have broad popular support in their respective lands and are at most minor nuisances to their neighbors - they're also participants in the international community too.
> the ones you cited appear to have broad popular support in their respective lands
So you're saying that authoritarianism works and is just fine. The implication is that Venezuala is a shithole and it's people are unhappy with their leader because of sanctions, not because of the lack of democracy.
I'm saying people have a right to choose that, and moreover it's not my obligation as an American to fund overthrowing those regimes, or for that matter make them pariahs for being undemocratic alone.
As much as I dislike it, there are also an acceptable amount of human right abuses before we care, and its somewhere between punishing dissidents and genocide.
Venezuela had economic issues before sanctions due to chronic mismanagement of the economy, which led to a humanitarian crisis causing a mass exodus (which made the economic issues worse).
I'll argue that Comet was a good design, but with too many unknowns being solved at once - while we had limited experience with pressurization the comet took more cycles, and had a much higher service ceiling.
I dont think the Comet was a materially worse design than the Avro C102 (both aircraft are similar) and the C102 may very well have had other unknown issues only to be found if it went into series production.
> No. It serves as a defense for people to criticize government. It's why I can insult and talk terrible of president Turnip (spit) and not fear the gulag.
> Theres different ways to protest. Being an obvious target isn't what I do.
The point is that your statements here are completely contradictory. First you say:
> "Its why I can insult and talk terrible of president Turnip (spit) and not fear the gulag."
But then you say:
> "But I also stay quiet publicly. Speaking out is a way to get the hammer."
In other words, you're afraid to exercise your first amendment rights. You feel that you can't, in fact "insult and talk terrible of president Turnip" without unacceptable consequences.
A lot of people get angry when I call out people as liars, but sometimes these people are just fucking lying to everyone and you have to call a spade a spade.
I think a valid part of the question of who invented something is "who built the first working device" - describing something in theory and building working device are not the same thing.
AG Bell wasn't the first one to conceptually invent the telephone, he was among the first (along with Elisha Gray) in making practical working telephone and later a practical working telephone system.
So, who invented the Satellite then? What about the steam engine? The helicopter?
Sometimes the inventors are so far ahead of their time that the materials science first has to catch up (in some cases only a few millenia) before they can realize their devices. Effectively it is then the first person after whoever did the materials science part to create the device that gets to claim the invention.
So we get Sikorski, and not Da Vinci.
We get Arthur C. Clarke who claims the 'communications satellite' even though the moon was there all along and the Sputnik was the first working very crude device (it was one way only, it said 'you lost the space race' in a single bit of message).
We get Newcomen, Jerónimo de Ayanz y Beaumont (I had to look that up, I can never remember the man's full name), and Hero of Alexandria competing for the steam engine title, with all of them holding some part of the credit.
Pointing at an inventor is hard, and 'who built the first working device' is one way of doing this but it assumes a singular effort whereas most things are team efforts and misses the bit that the idea itself can be an instrumental step in getting your 'true' inventor to make their claim, standing on the shoulders of the giants before them. In isolation, we all probably would invent the hammer in our lifetimes, if that.
Savery is referenced in the "Watt steam engine" Wikipedia article.
Also worth noting that even though Watt improved on Newcomen's design to improve efficiency, Watt's design still sucked: it took Wilkinson's boring technology to actually get them to work well.
Ah yes, and a better claim than some (there are quite a few more).
I always wondered what the effect of these in absolute time is. Consider: if someone had come up with a viable steam engine in the year 1000 or so, how would that have change the course of history?
I remember reading an analysis of that a while back but I can't remember where I saw it. The upshot was that the industrial revolution turned on more than just innovation, it also required just the right combination of natural resources (coal) and economic conditionsL deforestation in England driving the use of coal for heat, which drove mining, which drove the need for pumps, which made Savery's engine economically viable. Before that steam power would not have found an application.
Also, the piston and cylinder (which came later) were derived from canon-making technology, so that had to come first too.
I remembered the same article too, I'm sure I could have found it again knowing it was listed on HN and/or recalling the wording. Good article too, going in depth on steam engines - the first ones were so inefficient they had to be really close to a really cheap source of fuel and be useful.
> t also required just the right combination of natural resources (coal) and economic conditionsL deforestation
This argument is repeated often, but I don't think it's really true. Both Savery and Newcomen's engines were initially aimed at evacuating flooded metal mines and not coal mines.
"A few Savery pumps were tried in mines, an unsuccessful attempt being made to use one to clear water from a pool called Broad Waters in Wednesbury (then in Staffordshire) and nearby coal mines."
That is correct, but the article explicitly addresses this point and argues that the evidence points to Lilienfeld producing a working transistor.
"Later, some people claimed that Lilienfeld did not implement his ideas since "high-purity materials needed to make such devices work were decades away from being ready,"[CHLI] but the 1991 thesis by Bret Crawford offered evidence that "these claims are incorrect."[CRA91] Lilienfeld was an accomplished experimenter, and in 1995, Joel Ross[ROS95] "replicated the prescriptions of the same Lilienfeld patent. He was able to produce devices that remained stable for months."[ARN98] Also, in 1981, semiconductor physicist H. E. Stockman confirmed that "Lilienfeld demonstrated his remarkable tubeless radio receiver on many occasions".[EMM13]"
For many things (computers, rocketry, aerospace, etc.) and different reasons, Germany in the years around the second world war, was a pretty bad place to get international credit for your accomplishments.
"It was able to squeak, but not to speak. Experts and professors wrestled with it in vain. It refused to transmit one intelligible sentence." [0]
"A translation of Legat's article on Reis' invention was obtained by Thomas Edison prior to his filing his patent application on a telephone in 1877. In correspondence of 1885, Edison credits Reis as having invented "the first telephone", with the limitation that it was "only musical not articulating"." [1]
Fascinating stuff nonetheless, these inventors and their ideas... See also previous experimenters [2]
Yeah - though Bell's first apparatus wasn't much better - the invention of the carbon microphone is what really what set the telephone on to being a practical device. The rest of it was trying to build a network to connect people - and that was really hard (and capital intensive).
What blows my mind that we absolutely take for granted today is insulated wires. The technology and supply chain to mine or to find into metal and also to farm cotton and wool and formed that into protective tubing before the advent of plastic insulation. The amount of technology that goes into making a "simple" USB-cable beggars belief if you stop to think about it. Even a simple #2 wooden pencil with an eraser on top is beyond the knowledge of one person to produce, nevermind a USB-c cable!
In Victorian London, electricity was distributed around the home using bare wires with an air gap. It was 32v though.
Later it was superseded with lead wrapped in paper, until the Knob and Tube system. This comprised of single-insulated copper conductors installed within walls and ceilings, this wiring was encased in porcelain insulating tubes with cloth-lined sleeves.
One knob for Live and one knob for Neutral. The wires were held in place by porcelain knobs nailed to the house frame. Where wires passed through wood framing, they were threaded through porcelain tubes to prevent them from contacting the wood.
My house once had knob and tube wiring. Over the past 15 years I have replaced most of what I assume is the second-generation cloth-covered wiring (which dates back to the 40s, 50s, and 60s). Every once in a while, I come across the insulators from an older electrical system, but most of the wire that went with those insulators was pulled out long ago. The only remains are short bits of wire that were wrapped around the insulators.
I have a cable here that is interesting. When I first saw it I thought how strange, a cable that is multi-stranded bare wire for this application (connecting a camera). Then I looked at it under a microscope and realized not only is it insulated wire, it is shielded wire. Mindblowing. I pity the people that have to handle that stuff.
Small addendum: at least in Germany, early telephone wires (up until the 1950s?) were wrapped in paper, drenched in oil. The bundles were then enclosed in a lead-copper alloy to protect them from moisture.
Reminds me of the (not entirely accurate) story of someone trying to make a cheeseburger from scratch and realizing it required most of modern civilization.
To some degree, this is a consequence of the nature of the field you're working in:
* if the physics is so completely understood that you can confidently predict something will work from your sofa, and give an error-free recipe to build it, you indeed can invent from theory... but how deep can this invention be if the problems of the field are completely solved?
* if you are working in a field at the edge of human understanding, you cannot have the confidence in your ideas without having tested them experimentally; a theoretician makes at most a minor contribution to the actual inventions being realized, because he's producing - most likely somewhat wrong - hypotheses.
This latter kind of "theoretical" inventions are heavily subject to survivorship bias. Fifteen competent theoreticians make different predictions - all according to best, though incomplete, model of the world; a successful experiment validates exactly one of them, and we end up exalting the lucky winner as the "inventor".
In practice, any unexplored corner of the field will contain surprises; these will require extra theoretical development to cover.
Usually things like imperfect understanding of materials get in the way. Pretty much the reason you need both theory and experiment to make progress in every single area of matter-based technology (i.e. not software).
I had that thought too, describing that something might be physically possible isn't really inventing it, you have to build (and arguably sell) the device too. Re-organizing someone else's equations and saying it's technically possible is maybe enough to publish a paper but certainly doesn't rise to the standard of inventing in my mind
There's something to be said that mass production is another distinct stage of invention. Karl Benz may have invented the first internal combustion engine car, and plenty more built cars by hand for the rich, but Henry Ford made cars anyone could have for cheap.
I agree with that. It is a bit like the idea that having an idea for a startup is less important than the ability to get it to a level where investors might be interested.
A while ago there was an artical posted here about all the world changing inventions that came out of Bell Labs. It was easy to show for most of them that they weren't the actual inventor, and in many cases not even the first producer. They were the first to make it practical for mass production, however.
I dont think Starlink can actually make money without government subsidies and a whole lot of inactive users. It simply cannot scale, the width spot beams are limited by physics - they cannot get small enough to get the density needed.
I think that's the point? I'd always assumed Starlink was a way to fill in coverage gaps in low-density areas where cable would cost more than it was worth, not cities?
I'd argue we picked it for legacy reasons - Americans are not used to the chip/pin concept, and adopted EMV very late because of a variety of legacy reasons (massive installed base of mag stripe equipment, and systems to deal with the inherent slightly higher fraud).
No the US stuck with signature for profit and cultural reasons. Europe also had a huge install of mag stripe equipment, and has the same fraud systems, what else do you think Europe was using before EMV was developed?
But Chip-and-PIN makes using credit cards marginally less convenient, and forces people to authenticate themselves to perform transactions, unlike swipes and signatures, something that many Americans don't like. The US is happy with crazy high fraud rates, and crazy high interchange rates (fees for using credit cards). Those interchange rates also fund all the fancy points and rewards programs in the US, and primarily are paid for by the poorest in society (who can't access those programs, but are still paying the interchange rates). Plus high interchange rates mean more money for banks and the card networks themselves.
The EU on the other hand capped interchange rates, so either banks had to get fraud under control, or pay for fraud out of their own pockets. I'll give you two guess which route they chose.
> But Chip-and-PIN makes using credit cards marginally less convenient
Only because they chose to require the PIN every time. They could have instead have it depend on transaction amount and amount/transactions/time since the last PIN check like what we have for contactless now.
The legacy reasons are part of why we waited so long to adopt EMV - my belief is that the US had much higher density of credit card adoption which significantly delayed EMV/Chip adoption - to give you an idea, even in the mid 90's a place that didnt take a credit card was an exception rather than common.
I dont disagree with you about interchange rates etc - we should cap them - but as a high earner I'm also going to maximize what I can from that system while I can ;-)
Nobody was. That's what happens when something new is invented, nobody is familiar with it until they're educated. Nobody in Europe were not used to the pin concept when Chip & PIN was originally created (except of course for access to ATMs, which I assume also existed in the US).
> my belief is that the US had much higher density of credit card adoption which significantly delayed EMV/Chip adoption - to give you an idea, even in the mid 90's a place that didnt take a credit card was an exception rather than common.
I don't know why you think Europe was any different, credit card adoption and acceptance in Europe matched that of the US in the 90s. Europe did take longer to hit the same levels of adoption as the US, but remember credit cards have been around since the 1950s, and were computerised in the 1970s. By the time you get to the 1990s, credit cards were pretty much ubiquitous across the entire western world. The US wasn't some futuristic bastion of banking technologies, if any thing, it was starting to fall behind. Today, US banking systems look comically outdated compared to anything you find in Europe.
Your "belief" for the reasons US banking tech lags so far behind the rest of the world are pretty easy to disprove with some fairly superficial research.
My point is we (in north america) often seem retain outdated technology because of early adopter problems - be it the T1 vs E1 conversation, how credit cards are processed, all of it. We tend to adopt V1 of a technology and have too much of an installed base to easily adopt the considerably improved V2.
And my point is that V1 technology for credit cards happened in the 1950s, V2 in the 1970s and by the time chip and pin came around, credit cards were hardly new technology anywhere in the western world.
Claiming that the US had too large of an install base for chip and pin to work would be like claiming the US had too large of a propeller air craft install base to adopt jet engines (also developed in Europe), but somehow the US managed that transition just fine. Americas failure to adopt chip and pin has nothing to do with legacy, and everything to do with US culture has a different relationship which money and how it’s spent.
In Europe people generally expect to be challenged when spending money using credit cards, and that’s always been true. So chip and PIN was always an easy to sell to consumers. In the US, people simply don’t expect to be challenged, and even get up upset when challenged, when using a credit card. So selling chip and PIN to consumers is much harder, especially when the US so happy to accept exploitative banking practices, and crazy high fraud rates.
I think for all of our problems, the US does get this right - we know when to be formal and when to be informal, and its something that is well culturally ingrained - that is the spirit and intent of the rules should be considered as strongly as the actual words.
The issue is old IBM while it had amazing hardware and software, its cost basis was so high that they were wildly uncompetitive in the market. It doesnt matter how good your tech is, if it costs 200% more than everyone else's, you wont find much of a buyer.
My dad was a heroin addict, and while he eventually got (mostly) clean, he wryly joked to me once "you know there aren't a ton of old heroin users for a reason"
Using street drugs kills - we can put people on opiates if done in a controlled way, for the rest of their lives, we instead have gone down the road of prohibition, closing off pathways for people to get maintenance dosing of opiates.
reply