3 ms·
However, isn't innovation usually about building something exciting from output perspective, rather than about the building materials? We want the most reliable
by atomicnature 3y ago
However, isn't innovation usually about building something exciting from output perspective, rather than about the building materials? We want the most reliable building materials, but how you put them together to get novel functionality, or other desirable characteristics at a higher level is what makes a system innovative.
- jiggawatts 3y agoIt turns out that much of modern engineering was enabled by advances in material science. As a random example, look at SpaceX Starship: a key aspect of its design is the use of a specific stainless steel that has ideal properties under cryogenic temperatures. Similarly, the Space Shuttle external tank used a weird lithium-aluminium alloy. The F35 fighters gain some of their performance from high-performance plastics you've probably never heard of. Etc, etc...
- atomicnature 3y agoOK, from a philosophical point of view, it doesn't matter what building materials you use. Practically, as you've said, it does make a huge difference on what's possible (no disagreements there) Say we have silicon chips now to build computers, which give us say an iPhone experience. Tomorrow, I have a new material, which can also be used to deliver an iPhone experience. From the experiencer's output pov, it is the same innovation. They can't tell the difference between Silicon chip iPhone vs new material iPhone. You may use any number of materials and in permutations/combinations to get a given output. An artifact is termed innovative, when the "whole system" can do something that people consider particularly exciting/useful/interesting/etc. I am merely questioning the author's notion of what makes an innovation (improved building material view vs whole system improvement view).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]