5 ms·

People are still using the same screwdrivers and screws they used a hundred years ago. Phillips head isn't even that good - you can easily strip the head over a

People are still using the same screwdrivers and screws they used a hundred years ago. Phillips head isn't even that good - you can easily strip the head over a few uses, or even one, if you don't know what you're doing. There have been innovations in big machines (analogy parallel would be Hadoop or whatever). But at the small level, people are still using the basic hand implements they've always used because they always work, they work everywhere, everyone else knows them, and it's pretty hard to get the design for new ones wrong. Like the author says, his ideas don't mean you should use Smalltalk or Lisp. Just that you should demand features, like how it took until Rust for sum types to escape functional. But the reason you shouldn't use Smalltalk is also the reason why languages like Smalltalk aren't going to get made: because when you're making a general-purpose language, it is extraordinarily hard to paradigmatically improve on what came before, and it's very easy to just get it all wrong and make a pile of trash that makes developers at the few companies that adopt it mad at you. Even Rust is not that amazing in this regard; its wild and new data model is in fact the exact same one you were supposed to be using in C++, just minus the ability to refuse. Everyone smart who was able to make these things has been snapped up by big data where their talents produce the most direct value.

koyanisqatsi 4y ago
What kind of direct value are you thinking of? I don't think most data scientists and ML engineers could write compilers or tensor algebra frameworks and gradient based optimizers.
- lasfter 4y ago
  I think OP is saying the people who can write compilers or tensor algebra frameworks and gradient based optimizers get snapped up by big companies, not that every one who works in big companies is so capable.
  - koyanisqatsi 4y ago
    That makes sense. Thanks.
nrclark 4y ago
FWIW, the patent for Phillips Head screwdrivers states that the pattern is intentionally designed to cam out/ strip instead of allowing over-tightening. It’s an obnoxious feature, but it’s intentional. Not some kind of “this is old and therefore bad” thing.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  Funny I tend to strip them when they’re already over tightened.
  - axiolite 4y ago
    An impact driver does a much better job than a drill or hand tools at loosening them without cam-out, whether previously damaged or not.
    - daveguy 4y ago
      This is true. Also Note: the opposite is not true. Tightening using and impact driver is a great way to cam-out and damage a Phillips head screw. That's why torx style is much more popular with impact drills.
- cvarrick 4y ago
  It was an engineering response to the introduction of power tools in manfacturing. Slot head tools/fasteners transit too much torque which often resulted in the fastener heads shearing off when used with power tools. Rather than build a complex torque limiter into the tool (which would need adjustment based on use case), they built it into the fastener.
  - bartread 4y ago
    Would definitely have made sense back in the day. Nowadays most cordless drills, even cheap models, have that exact torque limiter mechanism built in so you can dial in the torque you need with a simple twisting collar - use it all the time. I hate Phillips Head screws, second only to flat head screws. They're "fine I guess" for some low torque applications, but even here they're not great. Was at GF's house the other day trying to screw through 18mm ply with some Phillips screws, which were all she had in the length I needed. Couldn't even get them through one sheet with predrilled pilot holes without them camming out and stripping the heads. Awful. Ended up making a trip to Screwfix to get some posidrivs.
robocat 4y ago
And flathead screws often work when somewhat rusty (easy to clean slot). Good luck with many other screw head designs which are easier to use only when in new condition.
- selcuka 4y ago
  Square (Robertson) heads are fine, even when fairly rusty.
gumby 4y ago
Screws have evolved a lot over the years, in particular over the last century. Instead of precision screws being made from a pattern, screws like metric ones have specifically designed pitch and thread shape. We still use wheels but they don’t look like ones on old waggons either.
- kragen 4y ago
  The Whitworth thread form (55° thread angle, a thread depth of 0.640327p, radius of 0.137329p, rounded roots and crests, and a set of standard pitches p) was designed in 01841; that's when screws started being made with specifically designed pitch and thread shape. The Unified Thread Standard used today is virtually identical to the Sellers thread from 01864, though the metric pitches were added later, and standardized internationally in 01898, and some problems in the UTS were ironed out in 01949 in the wake of wartime Whitworth/Sellers incompatibilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw_thread#History_of_standardization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw_thread#History_of_standa... So I would say screw threads have only evolved very slightly over the last century. Screw heads evolved quite a lot during that time, though: Robertson heads are from 01907 (just outside the century!), Phillips got his patent in 01932, hex-key screws are from 01936, and then we have hex head, Pozidriv, Torx, external Torx, and literally dozens of others. Hex heads pretty much replaced square head screws sometime around 01960. (Also, bolts replaced rivets for structural steel about 100 years ago, due to improvements in heat treatment that couldn't be applied to rivets.) More interesting to me is the increasing number of snap-fit fasteners, which can often replace screws with greatly improved convenience at lower cost. These aren't always applicable, and sometimes they're designed badly (Ramagon and USB plugs come to mind) but when they're designed well they often have much longer life than screw fasteners. Also, they don't vibrate free the way screws do (without lockwire or loctite, anyway).
  - sneak 4y ago
    This is my first encounter with Long Now year formatting in the wild. Bravo. Do you use it when not speaking of historical topics, too?
    - 4y ago

koyanisqatsi 4y ago

What kind of direct value are you thinking of? I don't think most data scientists and ML engineers could write compilers or tensor algebra frameworks and gradient based optimizers.

lasfter 4y ago
I think OP is saying the people who can write compilers or tensor algebra frameworks and gradient based optimizers get snapped up by big companies, not that every one who works in big companies is so capable.
- koyanisqatsi 4y ago
  That makes sense. Thanks.

nrclark 4y ago

FWIW, the patent for Phillips Head screwdrivers states that the pattern is intentionally designed to cam out/ strip instead of allowing over-tightening. It’s an obnoxious feature, but it’s intentional. Not some kind of “this is old and therefore bad” thing.

the_only_law 4y ago
Funny I tend to strip them when they’re already over tightened.
- axiolite 4y ago
  An impact driver does a much better job than a drill or hand tools at loosening them without cam-out, whether previously damaged or not.
  - daveguy 4y ago
    This is true. Also Note: the opposite is not true. Tightening using and impact driver is a great way to cam-out and damage a Phillips head screw. That's why torx style is much more popular with impact drills.
cvarrick 4y ago
It was an engineering response to the introduction of power tools in manfacturing. Slot head tools/fasteners transit too much torque which often resulted in the fastener heads shearing off when used with power tools. Rather than build a complex torque limiter into the tool (which would need adjustment based on use case), they built it into the fastener.
- bartread 4y ago
  Would definitely have made sense back in the day. Nowadays most cordless drills, even cheap models, have that exact torque limiter mechanism built in so you can dial in the torque you need with a simple twisting collar - use it all the time. I hate Phillips Head screws, second only to flat head screws. They're "fine I guess" for some low torque applications, but even here they're not great. Was at GF's house the other day trying to screw through 18mm ply with some Phillips screws, which were all she had in the length I needed. Couldn't even get them through one sheet with predrilled pilot holes without them camming out and stripping the heads. Awful. Ended up making a trip to Screwfix to get some posidrivs.

robocat 4y ago

And flathead screws often work when somewhat rusty (easy to clean slot). Good luck with many other screw head designs which are easier to use only when in new condition.

selcuka 4y ago
Square (Robertson) heads are fine, even when fairly rusty.

gumby 4y ago

Screws have evolved a lot over the years, in particular over the last century. Instead of precision screws being made from a pattern, screws like metric ones have specifically designed pitch and thread shape. We still use wheels but they don’t look like ones on old waggons either.

kragen 4y ago
The Whitworth thread form (55° thread angle, a thread depth of 0.640327p, radius of 0.137329p, rounded roots and crests, and a set of standard pitches p) was designed in 01841; that's when screws started being made with specifically designed pitch and thread shape. The Unified Thread Standard used today is virtually identical to the Sellers thread from 01864, though the metric pitches were added later, and standardized internationally in 01898, and some problems in the UTS were ironed out in 01949 in the wake of wartime Whitworth/Sellers incompatibilities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw_thread#History_of_standardization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw_thread#History_of_standa... So I would say screw threads have only evolved very slightly over the last century. Screw heads evolved quite a lot during that time, though: Robertson heads are from 01907 (just outside the century!), Phillips got his patent in 01932, hex-key screws are from 01936, and then we have hex head, Pozidriv, Torx, external Torx, and literally dozens of others. Hex heads pretty much replaced square head screws sometime around 01960. (Also, bolts replaced rivets for structural steel about 100 years ago, due to improvements in heat treatment that couldn't be applied to rivets.) More interesting to me is the increasing number of snap-fit fasteners, which can often replace screws with greatly improved convenience at lower cost. These aren't always applicable, and sometimes they're designed badly (Ramagon and USB plugs come to mind) but when they're designed well they often have much longer life than screw fasteners. Also, they don't vibrate free the way screws do (without lockwire or loctite, anyway).
- sneak 4y ago
  This is my first encounter with Long Now year formatting in the wild. Bravo. Do you use it when not speaking of historical topics, too?
  - 4y ago