This reminds me of a gem of a comment from about a month back, about a dead simple Russian guidance system from a Cold War-era missile: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47389285 Actually, someone even commented in that thread about how it was similar to biological mechanisms: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47390619
Simple spin-scan but with a rolling airframe. The technique is still used today. It is simple only if one looks at individual components. The total package is a different beast.
Would it do well on a Kindle or does it rely on illustrations?
Definitely relies on illustrations. The author passed away 15 years ago so I will mention the PDF of the book shows up in the first few search results on Google.
What I find fascinating is the extreme efficiency of what is effectively an electric motor, reaching nearly 100% efficiency. At human scale we struggle with heat dissipation and friction
But at the same time the motor is extremely finicky/fragile in the source of energy (negentropy) it will accept, while natural life is extremely hardy and adaptable. I wonder how much of machine-like "efficiency" is actually "overfitting" at the cost of robustness.
Who are we to say the mechanisms of biology are “overfit”? Maybe it would be nice if our personal machinery was more robust, but that robustness comes at an evolutionary cost. The greater force that is life on earth as a system for regulating planetary energy dissipation does not care about the needs of the individual. It does not care about the fashions of the millennia. Its sights are set much farther and its history much deeper than that
Article stopped exactly where stuff got interesting. This whole "protons entering bacterium and being pumped out" is exactly the ancestor of the mitochondria, that's what it does, except now the "outside" is the inside of the parent cell.
The respiratory complexes - the machines at the core of it all - are absolutely wild bits of natural engineering. Perhaps the most incredible and successful non-trivial natural objects in existence.
Truly mind blowing. A few days ago I found this animation [1] that shows it in motion [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/educationalgifs/comments/17squg1/ho...
Smarter Every Day on Youtube has a couple of videos on this topic that are worth seeking out, especially if that animation whet your palette.
For those who remember, the flagellum was a major site of the Intelligent Design debate that gave us Christopher Rufo (via the Discovery Institute)
The general idea was that there were specific examples of "irreducible complexity" that proved that there was an intelligent designer. The project on the part of certain Christian political factions was to add a veneer of hypothesis testing to creationism. The god of the gaps retreats further
Truly mind blowing. A few days ago I found this animation [1] that shows it in motion [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/educationalgifs/comments/17squg1/ho...
Smarter Every Day on Youtube has a couple of videos on this topic that are worth seeking out, especially if that animation whet your palette.
For those who remember, the flagellum was a major site of the Intelligent Design debate that gave us Christopher Rufo (via the Discovery Institute) The general idea was that there were specific examples of "irreducible complexity" that proved that there was an intelligent designer. The project on the part of certain Christian political factions was to add a veneer of hypothesis testing to creationism. The god of the…
Doesn't "irreducible complexity" here mean "it wouldn't function in any reduced form", e. g. "it would not be possible to build this up in tiny parts useful for other things and then have those things transformed into these things by tiny accretions and removals over the course of the lifespans of these creatures."? The article doesn't cite anything that would suggest that this argument is any less relevant now that we understand how the system works than it was before we understood it at this level.