Progress links and tweets, 2022-08-31
post by jasoncrawford · 2022-08-31T21:54:57.424Z · LW · GW · 4 commentsThis is a link post for https://rootsofprogress.org/links-and-tweets-2022-08-31
Contents
Links Queries Quotes Tweets None 4 comments
Links
- The Breakthrough Institute is hiring directors to run its new DC office (via @atrembath)
- Stable Diffusion: an AI image generator you can download and run (via @elidourado)
Queries
- Why didn’t clockwork technology get applied to other practical purposes for hundreds of years?
- Who are the best economic historians that focus a lot on technology? (@_brianpotter)
- What questions in economics have been “settled” since 1945? (@dkedrosky)
Quotes
- We should all have a little more awe and gratitude for the amazing world we live in
- In 1809, books or carpets in the home were considered luxuries
- Voltaire on the religious tolerance engendered by capitalism
Tweets
4 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Lost Futures (aeviternity1) · 2022-09-01T18:47:00.868Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Why didn’t clockwork technology get applied to other practical purposes for hundreds of years?
Could the stocking frame count? I'm uncertain of its exact inner workings, but it does represent a fairly complex, practical machine invented before the industrial revolution. Seems plausible parts of it were derived from clockwork technology?
Replies from: jasoncrawford, aeviternity1↑ comment by jasoncrawford · 2022-09-01T20:06:24.792Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Good one. In general, of course, there were many types of machines: small ones like looms and other textile equipment, and large ones like various kinds of mills. I guess what seems unique about clocks is their ability to execute a long series of sophisticated motions autonomously.
But yeah, I think the stocking frame is another example of an invention that was surprisingly sophisticated for its era, and predates a lot of other textile machinery by a surprising period of time
↑ comment by Lost Futures (aeviternity1) · 2022-09-01T18:50:19.922Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I also have an additional query regarding the stocking frame:
Did Queen Elizabeth I really inhibit the development of the stocking frame? The common narrative is yes. Wikipedia seems to think so, but I stumbled across a post disputing this claim. The same post also makes some pretty bold claims:
By 1750 — the eve of the Industrial Revolution — there were 14,000 frames in England. The stocking frame had by that time become very sophisticated: it had more than 2000 parts and could have as many as 38 needles per inch (15 per centimeter).
Sounds like a remarkably complex and diffused pre-industrial machine.
Replies from: jasoncrawford↑ comment by jasoncrawford · 2022-09-01T20:28:17.205Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Anton Howes says short answer, no evidence of Queen Elizabeth inhibiting the stocking frame: https://twitter.com/antonhowes/status/1565433982006792194