People with engineering mindsets were in urban (non-farm) areas. One has to be introduced to the problem first to then ponder and think of a solution. Solutions do not exist in vacuums. That is why interaction and “socialization” with problems is so important to inventions, innovations and ultimately progress.
To this day, the best engineers I work with are farm people. I think it's because they grow up having to get shit done every day and when that tractor breaks down, you've gotta find a solution or risk falling way behind.
SmarterEveryDay has glowing accolades for farmers [1]. Similarly, the highly-constrained Cubans are notorious matter hackers [2]. My grandfather, and Italian peasant, had the same MacGuyverish attitude towards making stuff keep running long past the point most Americans would have chucked it.
I think all software devs should spend some time on a farm. Great for inspiring simple yet clever "shipped is better than perfect" style solutions. Manual labor is also great for Sitatdeskitis.
"I think all software devs should spend some time on a farm. "
I think a lot of devs think they are the only people doing innovative work. But when you look around there are clever solutions everywhere. When I worked closer to metal workshops I was always amazed what stuff people there had come up with to do their job.
> SmarterEveryDay has glowing accolades for farmers [1].
Seems weird to use a video by SmarterEveryDay as a reference to back up the statement that farmers give accolades to SmarterEveryDay. Who are these farmers who are watching youtube and saying SmarterEveryDay is so great? I'm sure they exist, but that link doesn't seem to justitify that.
> I think all software devs should spend some time on a farm
Any office worker should have the experience how it is to not work in a office. In fact, everyone should try to have as diverse experience as possible, in order to learn from each angle and perspective and apply the knowledge in other angles and perspectives.
One way which can be farm work, but don't limit yourself to just that, lots of other interesting professions.
I agree, but I also think that the best engineers I work with are not the best inventors. Good engineers who get distracted and fall behind, preferring to optimize or analyze a problem that's been solved well enough to get shit done make much better inventors.
If Eli Whitney had instead built a marginally better set of brushes for slaves to work with and gone on with his day, the story of the cotton gin would be very different.
No doubt in part because of brain training from tinkering and "hacking" with physical, moderately technical equipment.
I feel I've gained similar experience from turning wrenches on personal vehicles since I was a teenager. It's a great activity that teaches discipline and seemingly exercises a certain creative, technical, and systems oriented type of thinking, which is very similar to coding, albeit much less cognitively demanding.
About mechanical design - I remember in university noticing how some folks would design things that would be very difficult to construct, where folks who already knew how things were made would do much better. It seems like there's something to having early exposure to shop-stuff, and tooling per capita is bound to be higher in rural areas.
Plantation owners weren't farmers in the sense that they themselves were actually out working the fields, and since they had set up a system where labor and capital expense were conflated (i.e., labor was treated in the same category as farm animals or machines) they didn't place a priority on 'labor saving' systems until the time and maintenance cost became an issue.
This effect can not be over stated. Plantation owners never invented the cotton gin in spite of the vast numbers of them and decades of cotton raising.
I suspect there were additional social issues at play as well. For example, plantation owners, being at the top of the social hierarchy have less incentive to invent. Also that tier typically views tinkering and mechanics as lower status and so would avoid it on principle: prestige was based on land size and number of other people owned. Certainly not number of new ideas.
Until you have industrial demand, you don't need industrial supply rates. Prior to the industrial demand, no one cares that cotton takes people too long to process as supply is matched to demand.
An excellent case study of what can happen when an engineer's ethical framework amounts to: "does it work?", given the cotton gin's impact on slavery. To think, if only it was invented after the civil war.
Take me to zero and beyond. Only affirms what a trolling echo chamber any forum can become when a thought is proposed that seems to challenge members of the community (even if only slightly). The number of downvotes is more than the number of actual responses to my post which is what I'm basing this off of. I get it, the down vote is easier and intellectually lazier by comparison.
> Take me to zero and beyond. Only affirms what a trolling echo chamber any forum can become when a thought is proposed that seems to challenge members of the community (even if only slightly). The number of downvotes is more than the number of actual responses to my post which is what I'm basing this off of. I get it, the down vote is easier and intellectually lazier by comparison.
In case it's of interest, my take is that half your comments in this thread are complaints about how the other half of your comments are being treated.
It's not clear what kind of response you would expect on HN from a comment 'Keep em coming' -- it's not conducive to constructive discussion, and consequently it's unsurprising you're downvoted without comment.
Comments complaining about voting are also typically downvoted (refer the HN guidelines), so again you shouldn't be surprised that those have a high (down)vote to comment ratio.
Deciding if you're a part of the problem or part of the solution can be done without thinking about blame in any sort of absolute terms. Also, the steam engine and cotton gin are two completely different inventions.
You might get a better response by saying something constructive, such as how Whitney could have predicted its effect on society given what was known at the time. Because it’s easy to want to have an ethical framework that results in good outcomes for everyone, but predicting outcomes is very hard.
Predicting outcomes is one thing. Putting the two questions: "Should I do something?" and "Can I do something?" on equal footing is another. Maybe don't conflate wishful thinking and foresight. And as far as the statement of a fact being constructive or nonconstructive, maybe don't conflate those things either.
"... In 1798 he figured out how to manufacture muskets by machine so that the parts were interchangeable. It was as a manufacturer of muskets that Whitney finally became rich. If his genius led King Cotton to triumph in the South, it also created the technology with which the North won the Civil War."
That's one take, sure. But the original point I was making was what if southern farmers had failed to make a large profit off of slave labor in the first place (with the help of the cotton gin), then maybe they wouldn't have been so attached to the idea of slavery to begin with and the civil war would have been radically different or entirely averted.
Depending on what you want to define as the start of slavery, slavery started in the US south between about 1650 and 1700--at best 150 years, and maybe not even 100 years. The entire institution of slavery in the US lasted only 200 years.
Slightly tangential, but I've always wondered something similar: why did we wait so long for the printing press? The technology is essentially the same as coin pressing, which has existed for much longer.
The primary limitation on the printing press, as I understand it, was actually the development of durable type molds. This was the contribution that Johannes Gutenberg made to the development of printing, both the development of a new alloy for the type and the development of the matrix system for rapidly casting type.
Just spitballing, but I imagine it was probably influenced to a lack of demand, in addition to the difficulty of building new technology. There was a large demand for standardized coinage. Not a large demand for cheap books. Near-universal literacy is a recent phenomenon. It used to be that literacy required a literary-based education, and a literary-based education required wealth or institutional support.
If you were wealthy, you could afford to purchase books that were the result of expensive bookmaking processes, or if you were an institution (monastery, government), you could hire people to copy texts by hand. Why bother with cumbersome new technology, when money is cheap and the means are at hand?
44 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 92.1 ms ] threadMany early engineers of the Industrial Revolution were farmers though, such as Jethro Tull.
I think all software devs should spend some time on a farm. Great for inspiring simple yet clever "shipped is better than perfect" style solutions. Manual labor is also great for Sitatdeskitis.
1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=ywBV6M7VOFU
2] https://oncubanews.com/en/culture/visual-arts/when-in-the-fa...
I think a lot of devs think they are the only people doing innovative work. But when you look around there are clever solutions everywhere. When I worked closer to metal workshops I was always amazed what stuff people there had come up with to do their job.
Seems weird to use a video by SmarterEveryDay as a reference to back up the statement that farmers give accolades to SmarterEveryDay. Who are these farmers who are watching youtube and saying SmarterEveryDay is so great? I'm sure they exist, but that link doesn't seem to justitify that.
> I think all software devs should spend some time on a farm
Any office worker should have the experience how it is to not work in a office. In fact, everyone should try to have as diverse experience as possible, in order to learn from each angle and perspective and apply the knowledge in other angles and perspectives.
One way which can be farm work, but don't limit yourself to just that, lots of other interesting professions.
If Eli Whitney had instead built a marginally better set of brushes for slaves to work with and gone on with his day, the story of the cotton gin would be very different.
I feel I've gained similar experience from turning wrenches on personal vehicles since I was a teenager. It's a great activity that teaches discipline and seemingly exercises a certain creative, technical, and systems oriented type of thinking, which is very similar to coding, albeit much less cognitively demanding.
About mechanical design - I remember in university noticing how some folks would design things that would be very difficult to construct, where folks who already knew how things were made would do much better. It seems like there's something to having early exposure to shop-stuff, and tooling per capita is bound to be higher in rural areas.
I suspect there were additional social issues at play as well. For example, plantation owners, being at the top of the social hierarchy have less incentive to invent. Also that tier typically views tinkering and mechanics as lower status and so would avoid it on principle: prestige was based on land size and number of other people owned. Certainly not number of new ideas.
Until you have industrial demand, you don't need industrial supply rates. Prior to the industrial demand, no one cares that cotton takes people too long to process as supply is matched to demand.
Do you have any evidence to support the perpetuation of this stereotype?
Apparently the “overnight success” founding myth was alive and well even in the 1700s.
Another interesting note, is that Greene went bankrupt trying to defend and monetize the patent.
In case it's of interest, my take is that half your comments in this thread are complaints about how the other half of your comments are being treated.
It's not clear what kind of response you would expect on HN from a comment 'Keep em coming' -- it's not conducive to constructive discussion, and consequently it's unsurprising you're downvoted without comment.
Comments complaining about voting are also typically downvoted (refer the HN guidelines), so again you shouldn't be surprised that those have a high (down)vote to comment ratio.
"... In 1798 he figured out how to manufacture muskets by machine so that the parts were interchangeable. It was as a manufacturer of muskets that Whitney finally became rich. If his genius led King Cotton to triumph in the South, it also created the technology with which the North won the Civil War."
If you were wealthy, you could afford to purchase books that were the result of expensive bookmaking processes, or if you were an institution (monastery, government), you could hire people to copy texts by hand. Why bother with cumbersome new technology, when money is cheap and the means are at hand?
I’d love to watch a TV show where every episode is a different eureka.
The closest I have right now is to binge watch Rick&Morty and How It’s Made.