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

Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

historylink.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 325 posts

Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

#291

Post by jbd28 »

j_timberlake wrote: post #224
wat10000 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Governor of Maryland posted a video of drones he saw hovering for 45 minutes, and he decried the lack of action and info from the feds. Something must be done! It was the constellation Orion and some other stars. He literally saw some stars and thought they were drones hovering near his house. Why shouldn’t I believe that they’re really this dumb?

Are you talking about Larry Hogan, who hasn't been governor for 23 months and has nothing at stake? You could have fact-checked that in less time than it took to write your post.

Everything else in his post is correct though. I saw his video, it’s a constellation he’s just never noticed before. And he’s supposed to be one of the smarter than average citizens out there

Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

#292

Post by kaffekaka »

sethherr wrote: post #185
Eisenstein wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But again, that is access to knowledge. How good would your college education have been if there was no library or textbooks? If you took the athletes today without their support team and sent them back in time two years before an Olympics event to compete on their own, I don't think it would be as big of a blowout as you suggest.

It would be a huge blowout. We didn’t know how to train or eat and athletes smoked and drank substantially more. Meanwhile, the gear evolutions make significant difference. But take distance running - prior to 1954, nobody had done a sub 4 minute mile. After that was known to be possible multiple people sub 4 minute miled in the following decade. If you sent a top runner back a hundred years they would be able to run…

As far as I know the progression into sub 4 minute miles was quite linear and not some kind of sudden breach once everybody understood it was at all possible.

The story of a sudden breach is perhaps more attractive though.

Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

#293

Post by sethherr »

kaffekaka wrote: post #292
sethherr wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be a huge blowout. We didn’t know how to train or eat and athletes smoked and drank substantially more. Meanwhile, the gear evolutions make significant difference. But take distance running - prior to 1954, nobody had done a sub 4 minute mile. After that was known to be possible multiple people sub 4 minute miled in the following decade. If you sent a top runner back a hundred years they would be able to run…

As far as I know the progression into sub 4 minute miles was quite linear and not some kind of sudden breach once everybody understood it was at all possible. The story of a sudden breach is perhaps more attractive though.

From wikipedia's 4 minute mile article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-minute_mile

> The four-minute barrier was first broken on 6 May 1954 at Oxford University's Iffley Road Track, by British athlete Roger Bannister

> On 21 June 1954, at an international meet at Turku, Finland, Australia's John Landy became the second man, after Bannister, to achieve a sub-four-minute mile.

In 1955 Laszlo Tabori was the third person to break the 4 minute barrier. Then, in 1956, three runners broke the four-minute barrier in a single race.

This matches what I described, multiple people attained it once it was understood to be possible. It was linear up to the 4 minute mark, but the point is that records that used to be impossible are now humdrum once achieved.

Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

#295

Post by WalterBright »

Eisenstein wrote: post #290
WalterBright wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google says: "While elements of the scientific method existed in ancient times, the modern scientific method is generally attributed to Sir Francis Bacon who outlined it in his 1620 treatise "Novum Organum," placing the invention of the scientific method during the early 17th century during the Scientific Revolution;" which sounds about right. It was much more prevalent in free market countries. Authoritarian economi…

> "While elements of the scientific method existed in ancient times, the modern scientific method is generally attributed to Sir Francis Bacon who outlined it in his 1620 treatise "Novum Organum," Which specific aspect of that work was responsible for humans being better able to solve complex problems after its development which could not have been solved before it, if the same access to materials and resources were…

> Which specific aspect of that work was responsible for humans being better able to solve complex problems after its development which could not have been solved before it, if the same access to materials and resources were available?

It sounds like you don't know what the scientific method is?

> The German regime

Yes, it was. And I wrote "tend to be" not "absolutely 100%".

Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

#296

Post by Eisenstein »

WalterBright wrote: post #295
Eisenstein wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "While elements of the scientific method existed in ancient times, the modern scientific method is generally attributed to Sir Francis Bacon who outlined it in his 1620 treatise "Novum Organum," Which specific aspect of that work was responsible for humans being better able to solve complex problems after its development which could not have been solved before it, if the same access to materials and resources were…

> Which specific aspect of that work was responsible for humans being better able to solve complex problems after its development which could not have been solved before it, if the same access to materials and resources were available? It sounds like you don't know what the scientific method is? > The German regime Yes, it was. And I wrote "tend to be" not "absolutely 100%".

> It sounds like you don't know what the scientific method is?

I take from that response that you just assume that the scientific method was important but don't know why. I will posit that is because it wasn't as important as you assume.

> tend to be

What number of exceptions would there need to be before you accepted that the entire premise was wrong?

Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

#297

Post by montjoy »

itsanaccount wrote: post #286
montjoy wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve come to few conclusions about this recently. 1. Most people will never believe in UFOs until they see one for themselves in an unambiguous way or hear a report from someone in person that they believe is credible. There is too much stigma around this topic. 2. There is a very large amount, probably 1000s records, of credible and consistent evidence out there. However 99% of it is circumstantial and will never be…

I think you're right on all points, though I don't find the concept of a higher technological power terrifying. If they? it? wanted to harm us they could/would. I make my posts about the subject on the idea that its important for people to have some warning, that its not something to dismiss, so they aren't surprised if/when something happens in our life time. For those who don't have the hobby of reading through tho…

> If they? it? wanted to harm us they could/would.

But how do we know they aren’t doing harm in subtle ways? Thus I’m embracing cognitive dissonance. I think the evidence points to something but I refuse to decide it’s real.

Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

#298

Post by positr0n »

WalterBright wrote: post #283
Maken wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universal basic income is about replacing government health care with free markets.

That's a novel interpretation of it. I've never seen anyone advocate that.

Hardly novel. I see lots of libertarians and conservatives advocating replacing most government spending (and beauracracy!) with UBI.

The conservative economist Milton Friedman advocated for UBI in the form of a negative income tax.

Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

#299

Post by WalterBright »

positr0n wrote: post #298
WalterBright wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a novel interpretation of it. I've never seen anyone advocate that.

Hardly novel. I see lots of libertarians and conservatives advocating replacing most government spending (and beauracracy!) with UBI. The conservative economist Milton Friedman advocated for UBI in the form of a negative income tax.

> replacing most government spending (and beauracracy!) with UBI

UBI and free health care are fundamentally different.

> UBI in the form of a negative income tax

That's not UBI. UBI is everyone gets the same sum from the government.

Re: Windshield pitting incidents in Washington reach fever pitch on April 15, 1954 (2003)

#300

Post by WalterBright »

drewcoo wrote: post #277
WalterBright wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> More likely it was because the systems didn't exist that incentivized figuring out solutions to the problems which technology solves. That is partially true. There is no incentive, for example, for slaves to make any improvements. I cannot think of any technology developed by slaves. That meant the few people in power were not enough to think of much new stuff. You could say free markets were the greatest invention…

> I cannot think of any technology developed by slaves. No thinking needed. A quick search turns this up: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/with-patents-or-wi...

It does indeed mention 3 inventions by slaves, and then a number of inventions by free men. For some perspective, here's an accounting of the number of patents by year:

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.h...

Post reply on HN