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

Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

rootsofprogress.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 515 posts

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#331

Post by hermitdev »

richev wrote: post #268
indenturedsmile wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a source, and maybe I'm misremembering, but I think compilers (for software) and CPU production tooling (for hardware) both bootstrap off their own performance. A better compiler can compile itself more efficiently, same for CPU/chip layout systems.

The original version of the C# compiler was written in C and C++, but today's version is indeed itself written in C#! https://stackoverflow.com/questions/27513234/in-which-langua...

Often, the first bootstrapped is the bare minimum to get basic functionality available, to then build upon what features you can support.

Its been a while, and I think it was gcc 7.x timeframe, and IIRC, you had to have at a min, gcc 4.x available to bootstrap, and it took something like 3 separate bootstrap iterations to get the final compilers was like 4-6 hours if memory serves.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#332

Post by 3131s »

lmm wrote: post #186
davesmith1983 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've ridden many different types of bicycle from fixed gears, single speed mountain bikes and more traditional mountain bikes and racing bikes. Recumbent is horrible to ride in traffic (you are below the height of most traffic) and the handling is atrocious. Yes they are maybe more efficient but they are not pleasant to ride. TBH the current design is efficient enough, is well understood both in terms of the technolo…

> Recumbent is horrible to ride in traffic (you are below the height of most traffic) Depends on the recumbent. Mine (an Azub Six) isn't - I commute through London on it every day. And cities are (slowly) getting better at keeping traffic out of the way. > and the handling is atrocious. How so? You have to take a different line through corners, but you turn later (front wheel is further back) so it's if anything easi…

I bike everyday in a large city in south east Asia and I would be dead a long time ago if I had been riding a recumbent bicycle.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#333

Post by dd36 »

vageli wrote: post #248
Animats wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The precision of keeping all those threads perfectly spaced is one thing " Making the first precision screw requires a "screw originating machine".[1][2] This is a special-purpose device which can make a better screw than the ones used in building it. Then you can install the first precision screw in a lathe and make more screws in harder metals. This is how precision is bootstrapped. [1] https://chestofbooks.com/ho…

> "The precision of keeping all those threads perfectly spaced is one thing" > Making the first precision screw requires a "screw originating machine".[1][2] This is a special-purpose device which can make a better screw than the ones used in building it. I hadn't realized screws would be needed to create a screw-making machine. I love that we have machines that make better versions of their own components, something…

The Technium is a superorganism.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#335

Post by ezoe »

Another interesting invention we had to wait so long is ski/snowboard.

Modern ski tools were commercially available after 1970s and some of them aren't affordable until late 1990s: Steel edge, binding with release system, polyethylene sole, fluorine wax and curving ski.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#336

Post by jl2718 »

The author briefly outlined the incredibly tortuous path of inventors adding every possible technology together over centuries to create a human-powered-vehicle that was even marginally safe and useful on the roads of their time, and then once they finally crack it, the author chalks it up to cultural and social factors. Trust me, as someone who tried to build a ride sharing service before the smartphone, it only seems “cultural and social” in hindsight. Its not. There are a million tiny technological barriers that nobody remembers.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#337

Post by kqr »

agumonkey wrote: post #131
sinker wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who had tried to make anything, especially anything original and with mechanical components knows this to be true. Even simple machines require a lot of forethought, planning, and iteration to be able to perform consistently and reliably. When we see an every day object like a bicycle we take it for granted and think that it must be obvious. But that couldn't be further from the truth. Take even just a single…

I dabbled in electronics, then electromechanics then mechanics. I'm now convinced that almost no software engineer is worth its title unless he made some physical apparatus on any complexity. Even a pair of scissors.

I think you also have to argue for why, for your comment to be meaningful. Otherwise, I could just as well state that "no software engineer is worth their title unless they've competed in horseback riding, specifically dressage."

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#338

Post by kqr »

dredmorbius wrote: post #221
mveety wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? That's akin to saying a mechanical engineer isn't worth their salt unless they know how to design and implement software. They're two different specialties that do different things. To be a good mechanical engineer you absolutely don't need to be good at making or even have tried to have make software.

Cross-discipline experience is invaluable, especially across several domains. One begins to appreciate commonalities, uniquenesses, and the infuriating significance of details only apparent on in-depth experimentation and iteration. As with usability testing, small-n samples, say three to five, go a long way. Do you have cross-domain expertise yourself?

But why specifically manufacture of consumer goods, when there are so many other disciplines, like horseback riding, nursing, human resources, and so on.

Re: Why did we wait so long for the bicycle?

#340

Post by ncmncm »

derefr wrote: post #216
Animats wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. And one point that cannot be stressed enough. Good steel, in quantity, only goes back to 1880. Lots of things that "could have been built in antiquity" foundered on that basic fact. Before Bessemer, steel was as exotic as titanium is now. The alternatives are not good. Cast iron? Too heavy and too brittle. Wrought iron? Maybe, but not that great. Lead? Too soft. Brass? Could work, but expensive. A king's kid m…

> The alternatives are not good. Cast iron? Too heavy and too brittle. Wrought iron? Maybe, but not that great. Lead? Too soft. Brass? Could work, but expensive. A king's kid might have had a brass bicycle. Haven't they made working bicycles with wooden frames?

The frame is incidental.

It is the little parts that matter. Not just screws; really-spherical ball bearings, ceramic-hard bearing races, micrometer adjustment.

Without good bearings, friction and wear make it a short-lived toy.

Post reply on HN