3 ms·

Whether one is able to settle on a working solution involves luck. The article says they "noticed" that birds warp their wings. They were unlucky, for a time, i

Whether one is able to settle on a working solution involves luck. The article says they "noticed" that birds warp their wings. They were unlucky, for a time, in that they experienced adverse yaw. Then they were unlucky, for a time, when a fixed tail arrangement did not work. Then they made the tail assembly steerable. They were also unlucky in that they killed a passenger, but lucky that it wasn't rather than one, or both, of themselves. I realized that luck-minimizing framings are popular within entrepreneurial settings, and particularly in cultures where we're all "temporarily embarrassed millionaires," but it would be far healthier if we took on board the role that fortune plays in success. We would be, for example, far more heroic if we were facing odds, rather than a grind with a guaranteed success at the end.

WalterBright 8y ago
Examining birds and noticing how they fly is not "luck". Langley had 70 times as much money to spend, and his Aerodrome failed because it was underpowered, did not have enough lift, did not have an adequate control system, the wings were too flexible and would not hold their shape, the airframe was not strong enough for the loads, and the catapult tangled with the airplane and pulled it to pieces. That's not bad luck, that's bad engineering from start to finish.
beaconstudios 8y ago
what would you call odds-maximising behaviour when directed at a project that is known to be possible (given birds already flew)? At some point you have to credit the Wright brothers for their skill, ingenuity and perseverance as well as some element of luck. Even the luck aspect is limited (in my opinion) to being born in the right situation (era, country, etc), and having not had more difficult competition in the race to fly. Trying to dismiss it all as luck seems excessively nihilistic.

WalterBright 8y ago

Examining birds and noticing how they fly is not "luck". Langley had 70 times as much money to spend, and his Aerodrome failed because it was underpowered, did not have enough lift, did not have an adequate control system, the wings were too flexible and would not hold their shape, the airframe was not strong enough for the loads, and the catapult tangled with the airplane and pulled it to pieces. That's not bad luck, that's bad engineering from start to finish.

beaconstudios 8y ago

what would you call odds-maximising behaviour when directed at a project that is known to be possible (given birds already flew)? At some point you have to credit the Wright brothers for their skill, ingenuity and perseverance as well as some element of luck. Even the luck aspect is limited (in my opinion) to being born in the right situation (era, country, etc), and having not had more difficult competition in the race to fly. Trying to dismiss it all as luck seems excessively nihilistic.