Why things might have taken so long • Hacker News Board

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#91

Post by bambax » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 2:05 PM UTC

daveFNbuck wrote: post #72

bambax wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. La Bruyère in 1690 wrote a very famous phrase "Tout est dit, et l'on vient trop tard depuis plus de sept mille ans qu'il y a des hommes et qui pensent." ( Everything has been said, and we're too late after 7000 years of human existence and thought. ) I can't find the quote right now but Aristotle complained once that the level of comfort attained in his era and city was so high nobody would ever conceivably w…

Human-powered flight does exist, it's just not very good because people are weak and heavy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-powered_aircraft

It's "not very good" not because people are this or that, but because... it isn't very good yet: which means it needs to get better.

That's exactly what inventing is about: making (existing) things better, until they're so much better, they become a different thing altogether.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#92

Post by adrianN » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 2:08 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #90

adrianN wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should try a bicycle. If you want actual wings, that's just one of those problems that need absurd amounts of money and brains to figure out. Genetic engineering is certainly a lot more difficult than inventing Nitrocellulose.

I'm aware of the existence of bicycles. They are not as useful -- or fun -- as the ability to fly would be. I don't understand your point at all. When something sounds far-fetched / difficult / expensive it means it's actually more interesting rather than less.

My point is that this thread started with the assertion that all easy inventions are already gone and it takes a lot of effort to invent something novel. You countered with flying via genetic engineering, which to me doesn't sound like something reasonably simple that hasn't been invented yet.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#93

Post by wickawic » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 2:09 PM UTC

baud147258 wrote: post #88

> Often A isn’t useful without B, and B isn’t useful without A. For instance, A is chariots and B is roads. Even without chariots, road are useful: pack animals and people on foot will move much more easily if there is a solid path that doesn't turn to mud when it's raining, that's clear of obstacles and relatively smooth.

It was a contrived example but charitably there are lots of inventions that are only useful in light of other inventions.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#94

Post by snarf21 » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 2:10 PM UTC

quadrangle wrote: post #17

About not having invented anything: it's harder to invent something novel today simply because so much has already been invented and knowledge of it is available. Centuries ago, it was easier to think of things to invent (we should be able to fly, to stay under water longer, to copy books faster, to notate music… ). It still took a lot of work to actually realize the invention (which only could be done by people weal…

I agree that things that "seem" easy have been invented but I doubt the transistors we put in everything today would have been seen as easy in 1900. I think CRISPR alone has near infinite possibility and that is just one invention. Quantum computers, carbon fiber, battery technology, etc. are all just in their infancy and will spawn whole new industries.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#95

Post by oblio » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 2:12 PM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #69

knight17 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>warning controversial hypothesis Prior to 1790, Clark asserts that man faced a Malthusian trap: new technology enabled greater productivity and more food, but was quickly gobbled up by higher populations. In Britain, however, as disease continually killed off poorer members of society, their positions in society were taken over by the sons of the wealthy. In that way, according to Clark, less violent, more literate…

The hypothesis Clark proposes is the least interesting part of his book - it is all the background and data on the industrial revolution that he provides that make it worth reading. I am on the fence if "the rich outbred the rest" is valid, but I do know from the genetics side that an enormous amount of selection has taken place in the human population over the last few thousand years. We really are very different to…

> We really are very different to the people living 5000 years ago.

Do you have more details for this? I was under the impression that biologically we aren't that much more different from Homo sapiens 50k years ago.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#96

Post by rayalez » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 2:13 PM UTC

sametmax wrote: post #41

kalonis wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can image a lot of obvious things that still could be invented like beaming, real hoverboards, holodecks and so on. Trying to invent any of this may seem preposterous to us as they are seemingly impossible. But these are only as impossible to us now as driving without horses or sailing the seas without sails have seem impossible three hundred years ago. And neither cars nor steamboats have been invented by single i…

The point of OP is that as an individual, you can carve a wheel or make a rope alone, with your bare hands. It requires much more resources to invent a revolutionary battery

But now there's so much more that you can do alone.

Write an app, and you've made a new tool instantly usable by any person on earth.

Come up with a simple device and 3d print it.

Lack skills to do any of that - instantly hire unlimited number of experts. Lack knowledge? Access it instantly.

If we're talking about simple low hanging fruit inventions that can be made by a single person, the search space is much larger than the stuff you can do with your bare hands alone in the forest.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#97

Post by oblio » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 2:16 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #27

drchiu wrote: post #19

The post touches on the idea that the number of human beings that exist today far exceeds those in the past. Interesting thought. We are now like a cpu (collectively speaking) with 7 billion cores vs 50,000 years ago would only be about 10-100k in numbers.

But only a few million cores are doing worthwhile work. Most of us aren’t contributing to the advancement of knowledge, for example. If we could up our utilization with more people doing R&D, for instance, we’d accumulate knowledge much faster.

> If we could up our utilization with more people doing R&D, for instance, we’d accumulate knowledge much faster.

And we are. What do you think the end result of China, India, etc., lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty will be? In 30 years' time we will have probably doubled the number of researchers out there, if not more.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#98

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 2:18 PM UTC

baud147258 wrote: post #88

> Often A isn’t useful without B, and B isn’t useful without A. For instance, A is chariots and B is roads. Even without chariots, road are useful: pack animals and people on foot will move much more easily if there is a solid path that doesn't turn to mud when it's raining, that's clear of obstacles and relatively smooth.

> Even without chariots, road are useful

And vice-versa; chariots are, after all, implements of war that fight off-road.

While A requires B and B requires A may exist elsewhere, chariots/roads is a particularly poorly chosen example.

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#99

Post by fastball » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 2:21 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #73

fastball wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making your own rope is easy with some trial and error. You just take a bunch of stringy things and twist them together to make a stronger stringy thing. The twisting bit takes some finesse, and obviously you won't be making nylon rope with your bare hands, but making a grass rope is child's play. Making a wheel, once you have the concept of a wheel, is pretty damn easy too. If you want a stone wheel, take a large st…

Wheels are one thing, axles and their bearings and lubrication are another. > take a large piece of wood and whittle away until you have a wheel This does not resemble the actual construction of any but the smallest wooden wheel for toys.

You don't think this is how they built the original wheels?

Re: Why things might have taken so long

#100

Post by sixtypoundhound » Thu, Jan 04, 2018, 2:27 PM UTC

Having run a few areas / programs that delivered a decent amount of innovation in the underlying process, I've been surprised with just how much isn't obvious...

My general expectations:

- First six months of full time focus on a work process is basically just learning your way around; goal is to get a real process map (actual activity) and proper data source - By the end of that period, I usually have a hypothesis about the way things ought to be - Months 6 - 18: get knuckleheads to test hypothesis - Years 2 - 3: Use results of tests to identify the metrics we actually should have been tracking and build appropriate data sources. Test new sets of hypothesis which work out brilliantly, usually from stuff we thought didn't matter.

Incidently... this is likely why most MBA strategy firms are full of shit... they usually exit the project within six months, which as you see... isn't anywhere near enough.