5 ms·

> For every technology we use today, there was a time it was laughably inadequate as a replacement for what came before. That is just success bias. How many ti

by vaidhy 4y ago

> For every technology we use today, there was a time it was laughably inadequate as a replacement for what came before. That is just success bias. How many times did people try out perpetual motion machines? The rest of the article tries to make the converse that if something is inadequate today, it will be the replacement in the future. When do you consider something to be not worth spending time on?

lesuorac 4y ago
> How many times did people try out perpetual motion machines? Or even turning lead into gold! A ton of famous scientist (i.e. Newton) were very busy with that idea but we end up only knowing them for other side projects/discoveries.
- olddustytrail 4y ago
  > A ton of famous scientist (i.e. Newton) The abbreviation "i.e." stands for "id est" and means "that is". So what you have written means "A ton of famous scientist (that is, Newton)"... Now while I'm sure Newton had gravitas (hah!), I doubt it amounted to a ton. You want to use the abbreviation for "exempli gratia" which is "e.g." and means "for example". It's a common mistake but easy to remember with eg-xample. :-)
jsiva 4y ago
I think its more a comment of how we should be open to people contributing to these efforts (while still being mindful of wild claims). While the concept of perpetual motion machines is flawed, the effort put into reducing kinetic energy loss is very useful. Flywheels are being actively studied as a method to store excess energy storage. In the long-term view I don't think you can consider anything not worth spending time on, the result just might not be applicable to the original goal.
saalweachter 4y ago
I think perpetual motion is the wrong way to go. Mark Twain lost all of his money on a wide variety of speculative investments, most of which I would call fairly reasonable. Getting in on the ground floor does you no good if it's the wrong kind of ground floor, or if it's the right kind of ground floor but the one next door ends up going to the moon while yours falters, or even if it's the right exact ground floor but you go bankrupt investing too early and the person who buys it from you rides it to the moon.

by vaidhy 4y ago

lesuorac 4y ago

> How many times did people try out perpetual motion machines? Or even turning lead into gold! A ton of famous scientist (i.e. Newton) were very busy with that idea but we end up only knowing them for other side projects/discoveries.

olddustytrail 4y ago
> A ton of famous scientist (i.e. Newton) The abbreviation "i.e." stands for "id est" and means "that is". So what you have written means "A ton of famous scientist (that is, Newton)"... Now while I'm sure Newton had gravitas (hah!), I doubt it amounted to a ton. You want to use the abbreviation for "exempli gratia" which is "e.g." and means "for example". It's a common mistake but easy to remember with eg-xample. :-)

jsiva 4y ago

I think its more a comment of how we should be open to people contributing to these efforts (while still being mindful of wild claims). While the concept of perpetual motion machines is flawed, the effort put into reducing kinetic energy loss is very useful. Flywheels are being actively studied as a method to store excess energy storage. In the long-term view I don't think you can consider anything not worth spending time on, the result just might not be applicable to the original goal.

saalweachter 4y ago

I think perpetual motion is the wrong way to go. Mark Twain lost all of his money on a wide variety of speculative investments, most of which I would call fairly reasonable. Getting in on the ground floor does you no good if it's the wrong kind of ground floor, or if it's the right kind of ground floor but the one next door ends up going to the moon while yours falters, or even if it's the right exact ground floor but you go bankrupt investing too early and the person who buys it from you rides it to the moon.