[HN Gopher] Forgetting the Asbestos - how we lose knowledge and ... ___________________________________________________________________ Forgetting the Asbestos - how we lose knowledge and technologies Author : areoform Score : 132 points Date : 2022-10-24 18:16 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (1517.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (1517.substack.com) | krisoft wrote: | Meh. People are overly worried about forgetting. In my view | forgetting is a normal part of information processing. You keep | what is important and chuck out the rest. | | Same with technological information. The way you keep information | is by doing things. You bet that we won't forget how to make | bricks, because a lot of people in a lot of factories make bricks | every day all around the world. The Saturn V was a white elephant | and once the special circumstances which made it viable has ended | people forgot how to build it. Who cares? | | If someone wants a rocket they can design one for themselves. And | turns out, they do. And those newly designed rockets are better | for them. Not better in some tech spec sense, but better suited | for the task they want it for. | judge2020 wrote: | The difference is that you don't necessarily know what is | important until you forget it and try to recall it later. If | you record everything, then you can make a more informed | decision later on whether to keep, archive, or delete the | information. | elil17 wrote: | Another, closely related example: A lot of the welding abilities | needed to build another Saturn V were lost. We couldn't replicate | the rocket without having a lot of people relearn old welding | techniques. | agumonkey wrote: | aren't there other industries with similar welding skills ? | nuclear plants seem to have high grade requirements, maybe not | space grade right off the bat but also maybe not too far off ? | throwaway4aday wrote: | This seems at odds with the current production of several | launch systems of comparable or greater size. Do you know which | parts required these special welding techniques? | elil17 wrote: | We have better ways to do things now - adhesives, new welding | techniques that impose different design constraints, etc. | IIRC there was some thought of reusing parts of the Saturn V | design on the Artemis program but it was not practical | because of the welds involved. | avmich wrote: | > We couldn't replicate the rocket without having a lot of | people relearn old welding techniques. | | We can perhaps create sufficiently close replicas, which may | work well enough, using very different technologies. | HyperSane wrote: | Making a Saturn V today wouldn't make sense because | manufacturing tech has improved tremendously since then. They | didn't even have CAD! A modern design would take perhaps a | tenth of the hours of labor. | pfdietz wrote: | In particular, and apropos to the comment you are responding | to, we have a wonderful new way to weld aluminum alloys: | friction stir welding. It was invented in the 1990s, long | after Apollo. | agumonkey wrote: | Funny since it looks so low-tech at first. | BitwiseFool wrote: | Despite modern techniques being superior, I share the | sentiment of the author that the lost knowledge is | something to be mourned. Even though that process wouldn't | be used in a rocket today, it is possible that technique | could have inspired a breakthrough for some other new | process. Like how Gorilla glass, originally developed in | the 1960's, was seen as a dead-end and largely useless, | until the iPhone was being designed. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla_Glass | MisterTea wrote: | > And I don't understand why. What did she hear that I didn't? | | Easy answer: Her personal zeitgeist. The author seems to focus on | the lyrical meaning of the song being the root cause for her | emotion. But her reaction is likely far more complex than "satire | of communism" but a time capsule or snap shot of memories and | emotions of her world when she heard this song. It not only | recalls memories of a painful part of her life but also the | pleasant parts: friends, relations, family, things and places | which are long gone; A temporal marker to a place which she | cannot travel to. | | Of course the author kind of explains this in the next paragraph, | but then seemingly backtracks to her interpretation of the | lyrics: "We will never be able to truly understand or feel how | the satire hit under the weight of an oppressive communist | regime." I highly doubt it was only about the weight of an | oppressive communist regime. | | When I hear "eye of the tiger" I can get a bit emotional. It has | nothing to do with "Rising up to the challenge" or the band | Survivor but the whole of the period in which I heard the song. | It brings back a simpler time: childhood bedroom, my father was | still alive, the joy of being a kid and discovering rock music. | It's so much more than the subject of the song and lyrics... | permo-w wrote: | am I wrong in thinking that the author is over-estimating the | ubiquity of the image of the Saturn V? | | I googled it, assuming he was talking about this: | https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Space_Sh... | | because for me this is the standard image of a space rocket. I | don't recall ever seeing a picture of the Saturn V, but perhaps | this is an age thing? | linuxftw wrote: | This fate is befalling the entire post-industrialized world. | | Boeing learned this the hard way when they opened up that plant | in SC. Institutional knowledge can't always be replicated. | Animats wrote: | The author of the article does not have a manufacturing | background. It shows. Knowing about, and measuring, sensitivities | to process variation is a big issue. Look up Deming, quality, the | Toyota production system, and such. Manufacturing has random, | environmental, and systematic variation. Random looks like noise, | environmental correlates with weather and other external factors, | and systematic comes from tool and die wear. Statistical quality | control is about separating those. Do we need to control the | humidity more tightly, or replace the dies sooner? | | (One of the problems the US has in manufacturing is the loss of a | culture where more people have a clue about a manufacturing plant | works.) | Night_Thastus wrote: | This is an excellent article. It's fascinating (if a bit sad) to | see examples of what was once common knowledge disappear for no | good reason. | _trampeltier wrote: | The Air Force Is Having To Reverse Engineer Parts Of Its Own | Stealth Bomber | | https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39537/the-air-force-ne... | virgulino wrote: | They also had to reverse engineer some nuclear warheads. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank | eclipxe wrote: | That was in the article. | plasticchris wrote: | Maybe John Romero can help, he mentioned working on it. I guess | there's a 6502 in there somewhere | cogman10 wrote: | Asbestos encapsulates a problem with society at large. We, | unfortunately, are simply too binary in our thinking "Oh, | asbestos causes cancer? We better purge it from everything | everywhere". | | The context of when and why (and to who) asbestos causes cancer | is simply ignored. | | This sort of problem exists everywhere. If something bad happens | or is caused by something (politics, economics, etc) we are | simply too quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater. | | From a tech standpoint, I see this a lot. Postgres at my current | company got banned because one team one time had a bad experience | with it (after they misused it). | bad_alloc wrote: | Ironically we might have also forgotten the massive cleanup | that was needed for or buildings to either remove or | permanently bind asbestos. How do you drill a hole into a wall, | do maintenance on cables and pipes or tear down a building when | it might emit enough asbestos needles to give you cancer at any | disturbance? It is not sustainable. | jollyllama wrote: | A lot of this is a result of culpability/liability/blame. | Intelligent use of aesbestos will be precluded by extreme legal | risk. Your coworkers probably avoided repercussions for their | experiences by shifting the blame to Postgres. | pixl97 wrote: | One way to look at this is when process and policy is not | followed. | | In IT we see this when information is lost (no backup | policy), or information is leaked (no security policy). Using | technology with no policy/process is almost always a risk | factor for business. If said posts team had created a policy | and process it's very likely the incident would not have | occurred in the first place. | | With products control is very rarely tightly held. There is a | supply chain from where it's mined out of the ground all the | way to destruction of the product which may be decades or | even centuries away. Trying to ensure that your customer use | a product intelligently over that long of time frame is too | risky for most businesses. | permo-w wrote: | the problem there is that if you don't entirely ban asbestos | and ensure that everyone knows asbestos = cancer, then like a | cancer, corporate interests and the profit motive will ensure | that it slips and slides back into usage to the point where it | becomes a problem again | | with public health risks, strong reaction is absolutely fine, | and I wish we had _more_ tendency towards it, not less. let's | do something drastic about micro-plastics! | cogman10 wrote: | Well, this is exactly the problem, it's completely arbitrary | and based on public outrage what gets banned and what | doesn't. If we can't motivate enough people to care about | something, it won't be banned. | | That's not a way to run health policy. I'd certainly like | more action against PFAS, for example. At very least, more | science done to know exactly how harmful it is (especially | given how it's permeated so much of the public drinking | water). | | But, would I ban PFAS all together? Heck no. Rather I'd want | to have a better understanding of where they should and | shouldn't be used and how we should treat PFAS chemical | outputs. | highwaylights wrote: | Well, OK, except that there's an infinitely long-lived | bystander risk to _not_ purging asbestos from all use. | | You could (for instance) argue that once the product exists, | and is in place, it poses no further risk to anyone - this is a | common suggestion but is demonstrably, dangerously false. It's | a rock, it never breaks down. Its state never changes over | mortal timescales. Eventually a building, or a rocket, or a | train _will_ be refurbished or scrapped - and when that happens | people in the area are at no less risk than they ever were. | iseanstevens wrote: | I think in the case of a non-reusable rocket being launched | into space there could be an argument for it, assuming | extreme precautions at installation and some | calculation/precaution in case the rocket fails in | atmosphere. | | It could even lower the net asbestos on earth :) (not /s, | though I attempting to add humor) | areoform wrote: | Author here, while I agree with some of your points, phasing | out technologies is less of a problem as much as forgetting | them. For example, we have far better insulators than asbestos | now that can serve as thermal protection systems if we ever | build a rocket of this scale again. One example of these new | technologies are aerogels. In 2012, NASA showed off the HIAD, | Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator, it's a flexible | heat shield that's made out of aerogel, | https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/game_changing_de... | | Plus toxic materials are very much still in use in the space | industry, including asbestos. They're used as separators in | fuel cells, insulation for missiles, etc | | Asbestos was banned for buildings not for the space industry. | https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/decades-after-proof-of-its... | | It will be replaced slowly as better materials become | available. | cogman10 wrote: | > One example of these new technologies are aerogels. | | And, to be fair, if you could use aerogels, you should use | aerogels. They are way better at insulation than asbestos. | They are simply cost prohibitive in most cases. | | Despite what it may look like, I'm not trying to shill for | asbestos :D. I just think it's a microcosm of a problem with | society. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _We, unfortunately, are simply too binary in our thinking | "Oh, asbestos causes cancer? We better purge it from everything | everywhere"._ | | The author's point being we not only purge it physically, but | also culturally and thus intellectually. (I feel like there's a | meta point around this thread being de-railed by discussions | about how bad asbestos is.) | reedf1 wrote: | Interested to know how one can misuse postgres enough to ban | it! | cogman10 wrote: | They stored data in the array and then did a bunch of queries | against that array. Queries like "select * from foo where | array contains value". | | Shocker, that's slow. | marcosdumay wrote: | Funny that this is a query where Postgres can famously and | singularly be very fast. | dragonelite wrote: | nuclear energy is also good example i think. | WalterBright wrote: | If gasoline cars were invented today, they would never be | allowed to be sold to consumers, because gas is too toxic and | too flammable to allow ordinary people to use it. | amluto wrote: | Like how hydrogen cars are in development but are waaay too | dangerous to sell, so you can't buy one. | | Except you can. The Toyota Mirai is available and quite | heavily subsidized. Whether buying one is a good idea is a | different question, although the main issues with owning one | don't involve safety as far as I know. | Retric wrote: | Managing complexity is important even if it results in | suboptimal solutions. | | Imagine if when building a house you needed to shape every | single brick for it's actual load. Sure you end up using less | materials, but you lost economies of scale and suddenly need | vast quantities of computing power for minimal gain. | | Using uniform bricks and banning stuff may seem wasteful, but | it enables efficiency elsewhere. | cogman10 wrote: | That's not what's happening in terms of asbestos. Rather, | it's more like "Electricity has caused buildings to burn | down, so lets ban electricity". | | Rather than focusing on the safe use of a material, we | instead lean towards removing it all together. Older | materials with known faults (such as wood being flammable) | are deemed acceptable simply due to having known weaknesses | in a period where we didn't care about safety. If we found | out wood causes cancer, we'd still use it in building and | furniture because we've always used it in building and | furniture. | | It's not an economies of scale problem. | | When you get right down to it, the people that got | mesothelioma from asbestos pretty much universally directly | worked with it (usually in the form of doing things like | blowing it in loose form for insulation). | | Yet we spent an ungodly amount of money and time stripping | asbestos from buildings that had been there for decades not | causing any problems. Ironically, directly exposing people to | asbestos in the process (more than you'd ever be exposed to | it was left undisturbed). | brudgers wrote: | Asbestos is still used when there are not good | alternatives. | | Asbestos is only prohibited where there are practical | alternatives. | | The problem with asbestos is it was used where there was no | rationale for its use beyond profits as a bulk material. | | Those profits were only available because the health costs | were externalized. | | The existence of practical alternatives is the reason | asbestos abatement is possible. The cost of abatement is | almost entirely the removal and disposal, the cost of | replacement materials is not a major factor. | foobarian wrote: | > If we found out wood causes cancer, | | If the rate was high enough I bet we'd phase it out. Don't | underestimate the importance of the size of the effect. | cogman10 wrote: | Smoke from burning wood causes lung cancer at roughly the | same rate as cigarettes. Have we banned wood | stoves/ovens/or fire pits? | | I dare say, wood smoke has caused more cancer than | asbestos ever did. [1] | | [1] http://www.familiesforcleanair.org/wood-smoke- | pollution-kill... | schwartzworld wrote: | In my area fire pits are absolutely illegal. It's densely | populated and people don't want to breathe their | neighbors smoke. | lazide wrote: | They're largely phased out in large swathes of Californa | due to 'spare the air' days lining up almost perfectly | with days you'd ever want to use them. | [deleted] | chucksta wrote: | Its a pretty big leap to say we would still use wood to | build if it came out it caused cancer. Steel framing is | becoming much more popular now, and is mandatory code for | the reasons you listed in certain situations. | | We (the US) still allow asbestos in certain scenarios in an | attempt to keep the baby and the profits. | https://www.maacenter.org/asbestos/products/. Talc | especially has had a lot of attention in the last year or | so. | | I think there is also a pretty big difference between how | people view a material with undesirable qualities such as | electric causing fires, or wood being flammable, compared | to asbestos damaging the individual. | cogman10 wrote: | > We (the US) still allow asbestos in certain scenarios | | Very few scenarios allow it and there's active lobbying | to remove it even in those usecases. The guide you linked | to primarily cites old products still in circulation and | not new products. | atoav wrote: | Thw reason why we don't use asbestos because removing it | without endangering people sucks. We had a room at our | university where they discovered an aspestos (or similar) | ceiling and the removal took a month and had to be done by | people with respirators, full body suits, air filters and | hand tools. | | If you have to do such a thing every time you are | rebuilding something it is not going to economic. | cogman10 wrote: | That's for loose packed asbestos (common in roofs). | | That's not all or the only way asbestos can be packaged. | Which is my point. If you bind asbestos to vinyl, for | example, you get a lot of the same insulation benefits | with none of the problems of becoming a health hazard. | | That's the problem. Yes, loose blown asbestos IS a | problem and a major health hazard, but it's not the only | form asbestos can take. Hence, baby thrown out with the | bath water. | verall wrote: | What about when you need to drill into or cut the vinyl | for renovations, or if the house catches on fire, or | floods? What about the factory workers at the asbestos- | vinyl plant? | | Maybe asbestos binded to vinyl is literally not a health | hazard in any of these cases, but this needs to be shown | in a positive way. The reason it's regulated/nearly | banned is because the default way we treat materials is | that they are assumed safe until data shows otherwise, | and we obviously can't treat asbestos as a default | material. | nyanpasu64 wrote: | > The example is likely subpar as it is a fictional example | | Is placing asbestos around the rocket engines a fabricated | example with photoshopped images, or is the description of the | design process behind the actual images fictional? | hnbad wrote: | > Of course, as you've probably surmised, the song isn't really | about the color film. It's a thinly veiled satire aimed at the | communist regime by the artist, toying with everything from the | regime's attempts to pass its citizens' lives as being nice to | Western audiences to the drabness of communist Germany. | | That's not entirely truthful, though? The artist said that the | song complained about the drabness of life in socialist East | Germany and being confronted with the economy of scarcity (making | a color film hard to replace if you forgot to bring it) even | present in the moments you escape it (by travelling to places | with nicer scenery). But the entire jab at "the regime's | attempts" and "Western audiences" seems to be conjecture on the | part of the author and isn't in the interview they seem to be | referencing. | | Also for the record, the artist has somewhat disowned the song | because the song's writer was a child abuser and rapist. Another | piece of knowledge largely lost to time. | | I think the author is a bit too invested in seeing the song in an | American Cold War context that doesn't match the experiences of | those in divided Germany for whom the Cold War was more about two | equally untrustworthy superpowers threatening their annihilation | over inconsequential power plays and engaging on continuous proxy | wars. | | It reads almost like the author thinks Merkel is weeping over | memories of how she suffered under the East German government | when in reality 2020 alone had plenty of reasons for her to feel | sad and the song represents a tiny act of polite rebellion at the | end of a reign that culminated in her watching powerless over | federal ministers making decisions she disagreed with but would | receive the blame for. | mhneu wrote: | _The context of when and why (and to who) asbestos causes cancer | is simply ignored._ | | Asbestos causes a very, very nasty cancer - mesothelioma - that | causes almost certain death. Painful death. With a very bad | prognosis. And mesothelioma is caused mainly by asbestos. | | There's a reason why we purged asbestos. No one wants to get | mesothelioma. | | https://www.cancer.org/cancer/malignant-mesothelioma/causes-... | | _The main risk factor for pleural mesothelioma is exposure to | asbestos. In fact, most cases of pleural mesothelioma have been | linked to high levels of asbestos exposure, usually in the | workplace._ | | Note that talc is a mineral crystal/fiber a little like asbestos, | and talc is connected to ovarian/uterine cancer. Let's not play | around with dusty tiny pieces of rock, they seem to be bad for | our bodies. | echelon wrote: | Asbestos is still being used in industrial settings today. | | In undergrad, we used it frequently in organic chemistry for | thermal reactions like sodium fusion. | | We don't see it being installed in places where it can be | easily inhaled. But it absolutely still has uses. | joshuanapoli wrote: | The EPA has an action to ban asbestos more completely. | https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/epa-actions-protect-public- | expo... | areoform wrote: | Author here, the point of the piece isn't the asbestos. It's | that we literally (in the original sense of the word) forgot | the asbestos; asbestos was used as a part of the first stage | F-1 engine's thermal protection system for the famous Saturn V | rocket. | | As the insulation was applied at the very last step, there | aren't many photos of the final product. Add the presence of | the cancer-causing asbestos, none of the existing displays and | museum pieces show this vital component. | | Because the museums don't reflect this fact, it doesn't exist | in popular culture. And because it doesn't exist in popular | culture, and that the people who built the Saturn V are dying | off, we are largely in the process of forgetting what the most | famous machine of the 20th century looked like. | | The point of the piece is the forgetting. Not the asbestos. | taeric wrote: | This has my curious. I could have sworn every space museum I | went to made a point about the asbestos coating. Just an odd | fake memory of mine? (Sincere question, btw. I have more | synthetic memories than I'd care to admit.) | areoform wrote: | Honestly, unsure! From my (imperfect) memory, the F-1 | engine's thermal protection system usually isn't mentioned. | | If it helps, other parts of the rocket were coated in | asbestos too, btw. The Reaction Control System had | asbestos, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19730017174 | | And many, many other parts, including the cabins, | https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space- | magazine/a-saturn-v... | | Here's a report for the command module, which starts with a | very funny quote, "The JSC Director waived the use of the | International System of Units (SI)for this Apollo | Experience Report because, in his judgment, the use of SI | units would impair the usefulness of the report or result | in excessive cost." https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/197 | 40007423/downloads/19... | themitigating wrote: | The information on asebestos can be found in some book or | technical documents | highwaylights wrote: | Given that's the case, you didn't need to include Asbestos in | the title of the article to garner more clicks, as I'm sure | you must have realised it would have done. | areoform wrote: | It's tongue in cheek. I write for myself and to reach out | to/engage in dialog with interesting people. And to just | add to the general sphere of human knowledge. | | I wrote this because I couldn't find anyone else addressing | it. | | Forgetting the Thermal Protection System (that included | inconel and asbestos) is a lot harder to read than | Forgetting the Asbestos. | | And I didn't think it would be a problem. Usually on HN, | people read the article before commenting. | peterpost2 wrote: | You've clearly not even read the article. | 29athrowaway wrote: | It was used for snow effects in old movies. Like The Wizard of | Oz | | https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pzfTz-tIbTY | | Really terrible if you think about it. | femto wrote: | A close relative worked for a company that made asbestos | cement products in the day. | | The factory contained an automated production line, about | 100m long. The first step was a room into which the raw | asbestos fibre was blown. From there it went into the main | machine. The door to the room had a glass window, through | which the "snow storm" inside could be seen. | | One of the old hands in the factory related a story whereby | new people would be locked in the room and their mates would | crowd around the window to watch the snowman show. | | A lot of the people I knew from that company died from | mesothelioma, including the person who told me that story. | (My relative was not one of them.) | | The upper echelons of the company knew the true risk (as it | emerged later) but it was downplayed, within the company. | Most of the workers truly believed that the risk wasn't that | great. | oliveshell wrote: | For the record, talc doesn't seem to be dangerous on its own. | | The problem is the geology of many talc deposits. Anywhere talc | has formed metamorphically, it naturally co-occurs with | asbestiform minerals. [1] | | As a result, talc mined from these sources is unavoidably | subject to asbestos contamination. | | [1]: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70027257 | mach1ne wrote: | Although we attempt to store information in external mediums, | it's humans who make the world go round. Funny to think that, in | practice, the collective knowledge of mankind is a fuzzy | imprecise mess coupled with a few scribbled notes. | Gumbercules wrote: | I'm pretty sure the world would keep going round if humans did | not exist. | leobg wrote: | True. Engelbart would be appalled to see where things are at in | 2022. | Multicomp wrote: | Documentation can't save us from being human. | | No data translated from one medium (brain) to another (paper) and | back (brain) is 100% efficient. | | But documentation is not only 'tutorials' / how to do something. | | Documentation is also 'design' / what to do, 'requirements' / why | we're doing it, 'changelog' / why we are making the tweaks we are | making in the process. | | I'm enough of an antiquarian to be interested in why the phone | guy who installed the phone lines for the theme parks did what he | did...turns out burying the phone lines directly in the dirt was | for a particular reason (cheap / good enough) and for decades, it | was indeed good enough. But because nobody read the roll up paper | showing the phone line runs, the lines were destroyed when | someone came along and installed a roller coaster with a greater | than 180 degree turn in that spot, cutting the bundle. The | documentation wasn't missing data, but the humans failed to read | it. | | We do forget things all the time, sure. But don't blame | documentation when humans don't read it. The weakness in the | system are humans, always. | | Now is not the time to give up documenting things. All salutes to | the ongoing flamewars over 'code should be self-documenting means | I never have to write AnYtHiNg down' aside, someone said | civilization advances by the number of things we can write | down...because we only have so much wetware / RAM / brain space. | | Someone said this and I'm stealing from them: under similar | conditions, the wimpiest charcoal on the flimsiest napkin lasts | longer than the sharpest mind. | | In this knowledge-based industries, no matter our particular | focus, we individually would be served better by improving our | communication skills, namely documentation of more than just the | brittle business processes and API interfaces, but the | who/what/when/where/why of what we're doing. | buscoquadnary wrote: | It's this exact situation that makes me fear the most about | Copilot how long before all our understanding and knowledge is | lost, and we collectively descend into superstition that forbids | tampering at risk of breaking something. | | Copilot seems to allow us to write more code, but the problem was | never the amount of code produced but understanding the code that | would solve the problem. It worries me what we are losing | | But I have faith | | 01000110 01110010 01101111 01101101 00100000 01110100 01101000 | 01100101 00100000 01101101 01101111 01101101 01100101 01101110 | 01110100 00100000 01001001 00100000 01110101 01101110 01100100 | 01100101 01110010 01110011 01110100 01101111 01101111 01100100 | 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110111 01100101 | 01100001 01101011 01101110 01100101 01110011 01110011 00100000 | 01101111 01100110 00100000 01101101 01111001 00100000 01100110 | 01101100 01100101 01110011 01101000 00101100 00100000 01101001 | 01110100 00100000 01100100 01101001 01110011 01100111 01110101 | 01110011 01110100 01100101 01100100 00100000 01101101 01100101 | 00101110 00100000 01001001 00100000 01100011 01110010 01100001 | 01110110 01100101 01100100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 | 00100000 01110011 01110100 01110010 01100101 01101110 01100111 | 01110100 01101000 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 | 01100011 01100101 01110010 01110100 01100001 01101001 01101110 | 01110100 01111001 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01110011 | 01110100 01100101 01100101 01101100 00101110 00100000 01001001 | 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110000 01101001 01110010 01100101 | 01100100 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110100 01101000 | 01100101 00100000 01110000 01110101 01110010 01101001 01110100 | 01111001 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01110100 01101000 | 01100101 00100000 01000010 01101100 01100101 01110011 01110011 | 01100101 01100100 00100000 01001101 01100001 01100011 01101000 | 01101001 01101110 01100101 00101110 00001010 00001010 01011001 | 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01101011 01101001 01101110 | 01100100 00100000 01100011 01101100 01101001 01101110 01100111 | 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 | 01110010 00100000 01100110 01101100 01100101 01110011 01101000 | 00101100 00100000 01100001 01110011 00100000 01101001 01100110 | 00100000 01101001 01110100 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101100 | 01101100 00100000 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01100100 | 01100101 01100011 01100001 01111001 00100000 01100001 01101110 | 01100100 00100000 01100110 01100001 01101001 01101100 00100000 | 01111001 01101111 01110101 00101110 00100000 01001111 01101110 | 01100101 00100000 01100100 01100001 01111001 00100000 01110100 | 01101000 01100101 00100000 01100011 01110010 01110101 01100100 | 01100101 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101111 01101101 01100001 | 01110011 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 | 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100011 01100001 | 01101100 01101100 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110100 01100101 | 01101101 01110000 01101100 01100101 00100000 01110111 01101001 | 01101100 01101100 00100000 01110111 01101001 01110100 01101000 | 01100101 01110010 00101100 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 | 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01110111 01101001 | 01101100 01101100 00100000 01100010 01100101 01100111 00100000 | 01101101 01111001 00100000 01101011 01101001 01101110 01100100 | 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01110011 01100001 01110110 | 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00101110 00100000 | 01000010 01110101 01110100 00100000 01001001 00100000 01100001 | 01101101 00100000 01100001 01101100 01110010 01100101 01100001 | 01100100 01111001 00100000 01110011 01100001 01110110 01100101 | 01100100 00101100 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 | 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01001101 01100001 01100011 | 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100101 00100000 01101001 01110011 | 00100000 01101001 01101101 01101101 01101111 01110010 01110100 | 01100001 01101100 10000000100110 00001010 00001010 00101110 | 00101110 00101110 01100101 01110110 01100101 01101110 00100000 | 01101001 01101110 00100000 01100100 01100101 01100001 01110100 | 01101000 00100000 01001001 00100000 01110011 01100101 01110010 | 01110110 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 | 01001111 01101101 01101110 01101001 01110011 01110011 01101001 | 01100001 01101000 00101110 | c0balt wrote: | The first part should be (assuming ascii) the Warhammer 40K: | Mechanicus opening speech | exar0815 wrote: | https://youtu.be/WyK7lX4sk0c | | I can definitely recommend the music, very atmospheric, very | alien. | openrob wrote: | Is this why when picking up a skill I always head to YouTube and | forum posts? | | Because someone taking through a problem informally always | reveals something that wasn't clear in text/literature. | | Anything from DIY projects to tech to cooking, it's always | something important | svnt wrote: | Clive James wrote a book -- Cultural Amnesia -- that comes at | this concept from a slightly different angle, but still very | interesting. | mrw wrote: | I liked Jonathan Blow's 'Preventing The Collapse of Civilisation' | talk on the same topic from 2019. [1] Although, it's more related | to software engineering. Previously discussed on a couple | occasions. [2][3] | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSRHeXYDLko | | [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19945452 | | [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25788317 | csours wrote: | I'm looking at a pile of several hundred shell scripts, and I | feel this intimately and personally. What was your intention | script author xb412j? | | --- | | For a very different example, look to older satire groups like | The Goon Show or Firesign Theatre or Monty Python. Monty Python | may not be old to some people reading this, but try to explain | some of the things they were making fun of. Many of the sketches | are timeless, but many are very 'of their time' | abathur wrote: | There could probably be a form of punishment or a group party | game based on deciding whether or not a short option in a | pipeline is a bug or correct (without comments, of course). | | Mix legacy/GNU/BSD/*box options if you'd like to ruin | relationships. | dale_glass wrote: | The ending doesn't quite work, and I'd say neither does the | article as a whole really. | | First, we didn't really forget "greek fire" or "roman concrete" | exactly. We don't know what the formula for "greek fire" was | exactly because it wasn't recorded. But in modern times we have | an amazing chemistry and can come up with a hundred formulas for | napalm -- we just don't know which of those matches "greek fire". | Nothing was lost but the association between a formula we almost | certainly know and a name. | | Same goes for roman concrete. We know far more about concrete | than the Romans did. We just don't bother to engineer everything | to last forever, because that costs money and has little point to | it a lot of the time. Yes, some buildings are works of art, but | many things just have a function to fulfill, which is often | temporary. Nobody is sad that the millions of mass-made soviet | residential crappy buildings aren't still as good as new. If they | were made to a better standard they'd still be ugly cookie cutter | things. | | And I'd say the same goes for the Saturn V. We didn't forget | material science or heat shielding. We launch plenty rockets and | even landed car sized robots on Mars -- that required excellent | understanding of heat shielding. If we had any reason to build a | modern copy, we'd use whatever shielding is required, after | accounting for modern improved materials. We wouldn't be | dumbfounded that the thing melted down on the launch pad. That in | the popular consciousness we see the engines without the asbestos | covering doesn't really mean much of anything. | einpoklum wrote: | > We just don't bother to engineer everything to last forever, | because that costs money and has little point to it a lot of | the time | | Unfortunately... | | 1. There's no "we". i.e. the entities choosing concrete | mixtures and other construction technology do not typically | share interests with the people / organizations which inhabit | the buildings, except in some very abstract roundabout sense. | Which is part of the reason why | | 2. Concrete construction is usually not engineered to last even | a few centuries, let alone "forever". In fact, it is often so | poorly engineered (or one might argue: misengineered) that it | won't last even a single century, or less than that. Because | the principle of costing less money tends to be taken all the | way to the point of just barely passing regulatory constraints. | | 3. ... and those regulatory constraints are often quite | lacking. I live in Israel, and a constructor is not even | required to guarantee that their building will not-collapse | beyond 7 years' time. | | 4. Actually, a lot of the mass-made soviet-era residential | buildings are very well made and almost as good as new (well, | considering how they often weren't so great when new). This | depends on the specific country, region, period of construction | etc. | taeric wrote: | I'd say this goes to some odd myth that I see all too often. | That if "you do it right," you won't have to do it again. | Somehow, superior technique and dedication of past attempts was | lost and that modern attempts are doomed to failure. In large, | paradoxically to the explanation, because we are better at | building things that just barely accomplish their goals. | | That is, it is an odd blind spot to not realize that "barely | exceeding the goal" is often far far harder than over building. | cwkoss wrote: | I'd be interested in making some concrete objects that can last | 1000 years. Could anyone suggest some resources or search terms | to learn what 'forever' concrete entails in our modern | scientific understanding, and how much more it would cost? | hexane360 wrote: | I'm a materials scientist. | | Part of the problem is "ancient Roman concrete" is the | epitome of selection bias. We basically know why it's strong, | and can basically recreate it, but it would take a very long | period of process optimization and corrosion testing to get a | consistent product we're sure has a long lifespan. | | If you want something to last 1000 years, you may be better | off cutting it out of a hard, stable stone (like granite). | einpoklum wrote: | > a very long period of process optimization and corrosion | testing | | How long? 1 year? 10 years? 100? 1000? | | If it's not the last option, isn't it worth figuring out? | RajT88 wrote: | Imagine the wonders we could build if we could justify | the investment based on the lifetime of the structure. | | Actually, you don't have to imagine it. Go watch the | show, "Peripheral". This idea of long-lasting concrete | was actually what I found myself thinking about just last | night watching it, in the scenes of future London. | cwkoss wrote: | Is there a recipe of 'off the shelf' components that could | be mixed together by a layperson and have a high likelihood | of being an order of magnitude more durable? | | Or is the tailoring of the mix to the environmental | conditions going to be a more significant factor than the | components? | cpgxiii wrote: | The answer is simple but impractical: | | Grossly overbuild the structure, so that it is lightly | stressed. Don't use any reinforcing material within the | concrete (much of the damage that happens to a modern | reinforced concrete structure is the result of the internal | reinforcement swelling due to corrosion). Ensure that the | structure doesn't freeze (water that penetrates the concrete | and freezes will cause cracking). | | Note that following these limitations would rule out the vast | majority of modern concrete structures. | johndhi wrote: | As an in-house lawyer, preserving the why is basically my job. I | write up 'memos' in which we examine a problem, arrive at a | solution and recommendation, and make the recommendation. Often | times the team that makes the recommendation doesn't do a great | job documenting the 'why' in its Jira ticket and so their | organization can tend to forget why something is done. I try to | make sure that doesn't happen, when it comes to important things. | Unfortunately we aren't always certain of what is important and | what deserves a detailed writeup. | munificent wrote: | The article laments this but I think it's important to understand | forgetting as an essential part of progress. We all have finite | mental capacity and attention. Time spent learning outdated tools | and processes is time not available to use for more valuable | ends. | | We understand this deeply when it comes to software architecture | where encapsulation and information hiding are fundamental | principles but it applies everywhere. There is a value in not | knowing, or not needing to know, because it frees up brainpower | for other stuff. | danbmil99 wrote: | I recall reading that the lack of documentation for the Saturn 5 | was related to politics behind the space shuttle. The accusation | was that NASA intentionally lost or destroyed the Saturn V docs | so the space shuttle would be the only option. | indymike wrote: | This happens often in the military. For example, shredding the | machines used to build the F-14 and F-22. | HyperSane wrote: | I read that they actually carefully documented how to make | the F-22 and also stored all the tooling. We could restart | making them but it wouldn't be cost effective to do so. | plasticchris wrote: | And the Blackbird, sadly | emeraldd wrote: | The mention of Roman Concrete is interesting. Was it that we | forgot the recipe or didn't know what was special about the | recipe in the first place? I can't find the article now, but I | remember reading a while back that part of the reason it was lost | was that the materials to make it could no longer be found and | apparently equivalent materials didn't work the same. | 8note wrote: | Material availability is a big deal with Roman concrete. It | used ash from the nearby volcanoes, which isn't available | everywhere. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-24 23:00 UTC)