“Actual” is such a weird word. From the title it sounds like it is going to contrast what people think is this person's work with what they actually did. Maybe to make a point that they did less work themselves than people assume or think. But it seems that “actual” in this case means that they wrote down the calculations on the paper that the video author has in their hands. (I'm gonna assume that this is the origin…
I found Katherine Johnson's calculations at NASA [video]
21–30 of 50 posts
Re: I found Katherine Johnson's calculations at NASA [video]
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
While the work itself is interesting, I'm also super curious to know how this was typeset. Did NASA have special typewriters with common math symbols, or go through some office with a Linotype or early digital typesetter, or something else?
Heh, that's a really interesting question. It's easy to forget that not everybody lived in the world of PC's running TeX / LaTeX, and Postscript enabled laser printers, etc. I have no idea how math got typeset back in those days... I'm too young to have any appreciation for that era in that regard.
Re: I found Katherine Johnson's calculations at NASA [video]
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
While the work itself is interesting, I'm also super curious to know how this was typeset. Did NASA have special typewriters with common math symbols, or go through some office with a Linotype or early digital typesetter, or something else?
IBM Selectrics had a symbol ball [𝛼] you could swap for the standard one. It only takes a few seconds to change balls, though when I've seen people doing it they would normally type all the prose on a page, then go back and type all the math. Super/subscripts were done by rolling the paper up and down half a line. The big symbols like the square root were done later with pen and a ruler. Working from a handwritten m…
Re: I found Katherine Johnson's calculations at NASA [video]
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
While the work itself is interesting, I'm also super curious to know how this was typeset. Did NASA have special typewriters with common math symbols, or go through some office with a Linotype or early digital typesetter, or something else?
Heh, that's a really interesting question. It's easy to forget that not everybody lived in the world of PC's running TeX / LaTeX, and Postscript enabled laser printers, etc. I have no idea how math got typeset back in those days... I'm too young to have any appreciation for that era in that regard.
Re: I found Katherine Johnson's calculations at NASA [video]
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't seem to understand the history of the time. There are two names on the report. There was very little, if any, political support at that time for giving her "extra" credit. The more likely scenario is that she should have been first author. That sort of thing happened a lot.
I believe they meant misattributed in modern media, not while she was working.
Re: I found Katherine Johnson's calculations at NASA [video]
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
While the work itself is interesting, I'm also super curious to know how this was typeset. Did NASA have special typewriters with common math symbols, or go through some office with a Linotype or early digital typesetter, or something else?
IBM Selectrics had a symbol ball [𝛼] you could swap for the standard one. It only takes a few seconds to change balls, though when I've seen people doing it they would normally type all the prose on a page, then go back and type all the math. Super/subscripts were done by rolling the paper up and down half a line. The big symbols like the square root were done later with pen and a ruler. Working from a handwritten m…
Re: I found Katherine Johnson's calculations at NASA [video]
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
You don't seem to understand the history of the time. There are two names on the report. There was very little, if any, political support at that time for giving her "extra" credit. The more likely scenario is that she should have been first author. That sort of thing happened a lot.
Re: I found Katherine Johnson's calculations at NASA [video]
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, the tone of voice in the video was very reminiscent of those ASMR videos which I abhor.
Yeah, I've often wondered if that's her normal speaking voice, or if she adopts that particular tone just for her videos.
Re: I found Katherine Johnson's calculations at NASA [video]
#29This work was done by a team of people. This is commonly misattributed to a single person.
Re: I found Katherine Johnson's calculations at NASA [video]
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I've often wondered if that's her normal speaking voice, or if she adopts that particular tone just for her videos.
I also wonder what the correlation might be, between such “wondering” about somebody’s speaking voice and the gender of the speaker.