Live data from Hacker News

The perplexing life of Ernő Rubik (1986)

fei.edu.br

21–30 of 30 posts

Re: The perplexing life of Ernő Rubik (1986)

#21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The language is probably in the top 3 for hardest to learn. Not sure of the 3D stuff.

Isn't this because it's so different from anything else? You can sort of divine some German if you're an English speaker and some Italian if you also understand Spanish, etc. But hey, Japanese is highly regular and also very hard to learn. (I did play with Duolingo Hungarian for a while, and it seems interestingly regular, although not in ways you might expect)

Only partly...it has lots of suffixes and prefixes for pretty much everything too. They says it's nearly impossible for a foreigner to learn (of course not true).

Re: The perplexing life of Ernő Rubik (1986)

#22
post #10

> By 1982 the craze was over and the toy's Hungarian manufacturer was going bust — quite a feat when you consider that probably more than 100 million Cubes were sold worldwide. But that was precisely the problem: a centrally planned economy isn’t accustomed to dealing with consumer crazes. A Budapest writer, Mezei Andras, has written a book and a play called The Hungarian Cube chronicling the debacle. It started when…

I think it applies to startups too.

Re: The perplexing life of Ernő Rubik (1986)

#23
"By an odd coincidence, at least two other people were independently inspired at about the same time"

I wasn't aware that there had been other cubes ( at least 1 using the same mechanism) invented independently, but this is a very common phenomenon. For example, calculus was independently invented by (at least) Newton and Leibniz.

What's behind this phenomenon ? How is that different people, without communicated and in times gone by without any obvious common influences, imagine and invent the same concepts within the same timeframe ?

Re: The perplexing life of Ernő Rubik (1986)

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The language is probably in the top 3 for hardest to learn. Not sure of the 3D stuff.

Isn't this because it's so different from anything else? You can sort of divine some German if you're an English speaker and some Italian if you also understand Spanish, etc. But hey, Japanese is highly regular and also very hard to learn. (I did play with Duolingo Hungarian for a while, and it seems interestingly regular, although not in ways you might expect)

Mostly because it's extremely agglutinative.

Re: The perplexing life of Ernő Rubik (1986)

#25
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's super interesting. Do you have a source?

God's number is 20: http://www.cube20.org/ They pruned a bunch and then did brute force evaluation of the remaining "hard" positions. It seems strange that there hasn't been a more elegant approach to proving this. An interesting (if obvious) corollary to this result is that the maximum moves between any two Rubik's configurations is 20. The relevant HN thread at that time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=158734…

You're the best. Thank you!

Re: The perplexing life of Ernő Rubik (1986)

#26
post #23

"By an odd coincidence, at least two other people were independently inspired at about the same time" I wasn't aware that there had been other cubes ( at least 1 using the same mechanism) invented independently, but this is a very common phenomenon. For example, calculus was independently invented by (at least) Newton and Leibniz. What's behind this phenomenon ? How is that different people, without communicated and…

From what I know, it's a combination of prerequisites (can you manufacture this? can you conceive of it?) and pressures (what problems are most people facing?).

There's also maybe some selection bias; most (all?) of us hadn't heard of the other two cubes, because they failed to catch on for various reasons; if a cube had been invented sooner, would we have ever heard of it?

Re: The perplexing life of Ernő Rubik (1986)

#27
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's super interesting. Do you have a source?

God's number is 20: http://www.cube20.org/ They pruned a bunch and then did brute force evaluation of the remaining "hard" positions. It seems strange that there hasn't been a more elegant approach to proving this. An interesting (if obvious) corollary to this result is that the maximum moves between any two Rubik's configurations is 20. The relevant HN thread at that time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=158734…

In combinatorics counting is always the best strategy. People are usually not good in counting, computers are better fit. So no surprise.

Re: The perplexing life of Ernő Rubik (1986)

#28
post #23

"By an odd coincidence, at least two other people were independently inspired at about the same time" I wasn't aware that there had been other cubes ( at least 1 using the same mechanism) invented independently, but this is a very common phenomenon. For example, calculus was independently invented by (at least) Newton and Leibniz. What's behind this phenomenon ? How is that different people, without communicated and…

As a kid I enjoyed the Rubik snake which I could contort into interesting patterns. My brother who was a few years older had a few other cubes, such as some with many more angled faces etc.

As for cooperative invention, it would seem that humans are not as unique as we think we are. In exactly the same way we have doppelgangers that look like we do, we also have people that overlap with us in behaviour, personality and ideas. Side by side invention is just one facet of that.

Re: The perplexing life of Ernő Rubik (1986)

#29
post #23

"By an odd coincidence, at least two other people were independently inspired at about the same time" I wasn't aware that there had been other cubes ( at least 1 using the same mechanism) invented independently, but this is a very common phenomenon. For example, calculus was independently invented by (at least) Newton and Leibniz. What's behind this phenomenon ? How is that different people, without communicated and…

As a kid I enjoyed the Rubik snake which I could contort into interesting patterns. My brother who was a few years older had a few other cubes, such as some with many more angled faces etc. As for cooperative invention, it would seem that humans are not as unique as we think we are. In exactly the same way we have doppelgangers that look like we do, we also have people that overlap with us in behaviour, personality a…

I like that idea of "mental doppelgangers"!

Re: The perplexing life of Ernő Rubik (1986)

#30
post #12

Ernö was a professor of mine in an international School in Hungary when I was there for study abroad. He was one of the most insightful people I have ever met and lessons learned from my conversations with him - about perspective, emotion and complexity - still reverberate in my head daily.

Any anecdotes you can recall?

To answer a sibling. Yes, this was at AIT. One of the moments I remember most vividly was the first project review we were doing. The task was to fold hard construction paper into an object. I was starting work on a human face and had completed just the eye.

After taking a few seconds to roll it over in his hands, he handed it back to me and said, "what is it?" I said, "It's a human eye." He responded, "It is not shaped like an eye, it is not colored like an eye, it does not look like an eye." I was very disappointed.

Looking back on it years later, that conversation taught me a valuable lesson. Metaphors are built up of tiny little pieces that all come together to form a complete picture. If one of those pieces is off or missing, it's like missing letters from a wrd (word). At a certain point the wd (word) just breaks down until it's not even recognizable as a w (word) anymore...

The same goes for design. The eye I had made definitely resembled an eye. It had an iris and it was as round as I could make it. But the illusion of the eye was lost on the viewer and at best it looked like eye-shaped paper. That was the point he was making and my future work suffered until I realized that it wasn't the outcome I should be focusing on. Instead, I should reflect on the individual pieces that make up an experience in order for it to match the user's expectations.

Post reply on HN