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

Open Source Low Tech

opensourcelowtech.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 143 posts

Re: Open Source Low Tech

#31

Post by hobofan »

nchmy wrote: post #26
gaigalas wrote: post #15

Reminds me of https://www.opensourceecology.org/ , but way more low tech. One could actually try the Open Source Low Tech designs without having a small fortune to spare or gathering a considerable community to cooperate.

I've never really understood the point of open source ecology. As you noted, it seems egregiously complicated and expensive. I guess that's why it seems to languish in obscurity.

I think it makes more sense if it's not viewed under the aspect of trying to be maximally productive in its output. If you look at it over they years, they've also tried to do a share of public outreach / education (though I'm not sure how successful), and I think they also sustain themselves in terms of labor with burnt out tech people that are looking for a change of scenery.

So similar to a good zoo, that does both active conservation work, and at the same time public education (e.g. in the form of guided tours for school trips).

> I guess that's why it seems to languish in obscurity.

I think even in a well-executed form, it would likely still be quite obscure, as there is next to no need for it in western societies (apart from emergency preperation).

Re: Open Source Low Tech

#33

Post by benj111 »

nchmy wrote: post #14
benj111 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be nice is setting up as much manufacturing as possible in Africa for making bikes designed for Africa. Bike maintenance isn't a skill issue. It's an issue of specialised tools and hard to get spares. Talk to your own Grand parents. If they weren't rich they'd have had to fix their own bike, and they wouldn't have had Google helping them.

What would be different about a bike designed for Africa than one designed for anywhere else? What parts that require specialized tools should be redesigned to use standard tools?

Well I'm not African so I don't know.

I'm thinking that in the west we either have very cheap bikes that aren't really designed for long term use, and more expensive bikes tend to use fancier parts.

Off the top of my head. Steel frame, can be repaired / modified with any old welder. Designed so it can be taken apart with the minimum of generic tools. Standard bearings, brake blocks etc (probably brake blocks that you can shove some piece of old tyre in).

Front forks and the crank require special tools to remove. I assume the free wheel assembly would be the same. I don't know if it would be possible to modify these to be serviceable with basic tools, the point is an African could probably work out how to fix a bike, the issue would be affording tools and spares, and availability of those tools and spares.

Re: Open Source Low Tech

#35

Post by swiftcoder »

nchmy wrote: post #20
bloqs wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had never really considered the _competence_ of help before. It makes a huge amount of sense and is a strong argument for intelligent younger folk looking for a meaningful career. Instead of engineering for the pocket lining of your chosen billionaire, why not use those incredible skills to use in frugal or humanitarian engineering

In my fairly extensive experience, non-profit organizations are not just full of and run by grossly incompetent people, but deeply arrogant and/or deluded ones as well. I have NEVER found an organization that has a genuine desire to seek truth, efficacy etc. They often go with whatever their first (inevitably insufficient) idea was, and not only reject all criticism but respond with indignity, etc... There's no meani…

To some extent, one doesn't even see the competent non-profits. They don't market aggressively, they don't scale up rapidly, they just stick to their niche and quietly hammer away at it for decades on end (often on things that have no feasible exit, like schools that will need to be externally funded forever)

Re: Open Source Low Tech

#36

Post by aembleton »

benj111 wrote: post #33
nchmy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be different about a bike designed for Africa than one designed for anywhere else? What parts that require specialized tools should be redesigned to use standard tools?

Well I'm not African so I don't know. I'm thinking that in the west we either have very cheap bikes that aren't really designed for long term use, and more expensive bikes tend to use fancier parts. Off the top of my head. Steel frame, can be repaired / modified with any old welder. Designed so it can be taken apart with the minimum of generic tools. Standard bearings, brake blocks etc (probably brake blocks that you…

Sounds like a Dutch bike would work well

Re: Open Source Low Tech

#37

Post by utopiah »

Atiscant wrote: post #18

Seems somewhat related to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_technology

Damn, thank you! I often refers to myself saying "Naive heuristic : avoiding gadgets or services (free or not) that increase inequality by design, through technology or business model or both, would be a good starting point." but I can now point to this!

Re: Open Source Low Tech

#38

Post by fragmede »

swiftcoder wrote: post #35
nchmy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my fairly extensive experience, non-profit organizations are not just full of and run by grossly incompetent people, but deeply arrogant and/or deluded ones as well. I have NEVER found an organization that has a genuine desire to seek truth, efficacy etc. They often go with whatever their first (inevitably insufficient) idea was, and not only reject all criticism but respond with indignity, etc... There's no meani…

To some extent, one doesn't even see the competent non-profits. They don't market aggressively, they don't scale up rapidly, they just stick to their niche and quietly hammer away at it for decades on end (often on things that have no feasible exit, like schools that will need to be externally funded forever )

That seems like a simple money regulations issue. If the school has a $100 million endowment, but doesn't spend into it, the school would exist forever. If we say 10% returns a year, that's $10 million to spend on students in the form of teachers and classrooms and housing and books and everything. Unfortunately, that only teaches N students per year. But it would last ~forever. If, however, you get greedy with wanting to teach more than N students per year, then you get into the treadmill of needing external funding forever, but on the face of it, I don't accept that external funding is required forever.

Re: Open Source Low Tech

#39

Post by ForHackernews »

nchmy wrote: post #20
bloqs wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had never really considered the _competence_ of help before. It makes a huge amount of sense and is a strong argument for intelligent younger folk looking for a meaningful career. Instead of engineering for the pocket lining of your chosen billionaire, why not use those incredible skills to use in frugal or humanitarian engineering

In my fairly extensive experience, non-profit organizations are not just full of and run by grossly incompetent people, but deeply arrogant and/or deluded ones as well. I have NEVER found an organization that has a genuine desire to seek truth, efficacy etc. They often go with whatever their first (inevitably insufficient) idea was, and not only reject all criticism but respond with indignity, etc... There's no meani…

The Carter Center has nearly eliminated the Guinea Worm: https://www.cartercenter.org/programs/guinea-worm/

I'm sure there's plenty of incompetent nonprofits out there, but there's plenty of incompetent for-profits as well.

Re: Open Source Low Tech

#40

Post by swiftcoder »

fragmede wrote: post #38
swiftcoder wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To some extent, one doesn't even see the competent non-profits. They don't market aggressively, they don't scale up rapidly, they just stick to their niche and quietly hammer away at it for decades on end (often on things that have no feasible exit, like schools that will need to be externally funded forever )

That seems like a simple money regulations issue. If the school has a $100 million endowment, but doesn't spend into it, the school would exist forever. If we say 10% returns a year, that's $10 million to spend on students in the form of teachers and classrooms and housing and books and everything. Unfortunately, that only teaches N students per year. But it would last ~forever. If, however, you get greedy with wanti…

A 100 million endowment is effectively "forever funding" from the perspective of a school that takes in maybe 200k/year of donations. You don't get 100 million endowments without the scale and marketing, unfortunately
Post reply on HN