Not levers and wheels and gears, but Velcro and paper clips. I’d put “modern” as after 1700, and “simple” as “you can pretty much build it yourself”, but you can argue theses (as I’m sure you will! :-)
Pads and tampons. Some argue these are environmentally unfriendly and produce too much waste, but you have to think, not everyone is privileged enough to own a washing machine in their own home, particularly those in 2nd and 3rd world countries. I genuinely believed pads and tampons allowed women to be more productive in the work force and eventually lead to more equality, just hearing my mom and grandma's story of having to hand wash your own bloody (literally) period bands gives me nightmares, that was in the 70s, not that long ago.
They produce much less waste, are much less messy (almost never leak), and don't need to be changed as often (once every 6 - 12 hours and without the TSS risks that tampons have).
It's better to use running water to wash them out, but simply wiping them with tissue paper can work too (albeit a little messily), if water is scarce.
A downside that I've read about however is that just like with tampons, some cultures consider inserting anything into the vagina as losing your virginity so using them may be considered taboo.
True. On your last point, I think that actually makes pads a more significant invention over tampons and menstrual cups, because it allowed women in very conservative cultures where losing your virginity before marriage is considered taboo, to still able to go about their normal daily actives during periods. Interesting me and friends from elementary school in China were never taught to use tampons, tampons and menstrual cups didn't become a thing until very recently.
Thank you for linking that report, very interesting.
I also read through the article[0] that the report linked. I think a significant factor in the difference in risk is how much contact tampons are making with the vaginal canal vs menstrual cups; the article mentions that the risk is higher if the cup is allowed to overflow (and the toxins from within the cup make contact with the vaginal canal).
So I suppose that even though the cup can be left inside for longer than a tampon can, that (as advised) it should definitely not be left inside for longer than necessary.
I live in New York and the majority of my friends do not have washing machine in their home. In fact, it’s a luxury to have one. In contrast, I’m originally from Ukraine where not having a washing machine is weird to say the least. There are many things that would make me call US a 2nd world country, so I’m having a hard time understanding which countries are 1st world countries.
A quick Googling suggested that 25% of them don't have dishwashers. I don't know if that number is accurate, but 25% would be a lot more than I would have expected too.
After WWII, there were two superpowers splitting the world between them: the first world was the NATO West, and the second world was the Soviet East. Countries who were unaligned, or not considered sufficiently important, made up the so-called third world. If these terms ever meant anything, they don't anymore, and they certainly have nothing (directly) to do with washing machines!
I live New York. 5/7 years I’ve been here I haven’t had a wash.
In my experience, an apartment with in-unit goes for 10% more than one without. My rent is 1850/mo and my local friendly laundromat does wash-and-fold for $0.90/lb. The math works out that an in-unit wash just isn’t worth it to me.
Even if you’re lucky enough to afford rent in New York you probably can only afford one or two luxuries. For me I‘ve chosen living alone and windows that get sunlight over things like square footage, location, or a wash.
The time savings from using a wash and fold service aren't to be denied, either. You just drop off a huge sack of laundry once every week or two before work, and you pick it up on the way home nicely washed and folded, better than I, at least, would have done it. By the time you buy detergent and fabric softener and dryer sheets, and factor in the time derping around waiting for it to do its thing, especially in a sketchy coin-op laundry or a dank shared basement washroom, it's a little silly to do it yourself.
Speaking of course as a bachelor. When you are coupled up, or especially when children are involved, dirty laundry production escalates exponentially and wash-and-fold becomes prohibitively expensive and the capital investment in laundry equipment reduces in importance.
Yeah, I had to use a service for a few years (no laundramats within walking distance) and while it was definitely more expensive than doing it myself, it was pretty great. I was always amused by getting my clothes back in this perfectly rectilinear package. My main complaint was that the service insisted on a pick up/drop off time that was like 7am and I lived on a 4th floor walk up, so I have a lot of memories of getting jolted out of a sound sleep and having to schlep a heavy bag up or down a bunch of stairs.
How small are these apartments? I live in a 25 square meter one (according to wiki the definition of a tiny house is something smaller than 36 square meters) but there's still room for a washer and drier stacked on top of it. Around here the people that use building machines or laundromats are generally in the 15-20 square meter range or on razor tight budgets. Apart from that I know one guy without one and he's betting on not living long enough for it to be a wise investment.
25 meters is pretty reasonable for a NYC apartment. I think it has more to do with the additional plumbing and ventilation setup that's missing. The old pre-war buildings are too expensive to renovate to add that kind of thing and a lot of the newer construction is aimed at maximizing profit by cutting every possible corner and those buildings were competing with the older buildings that didn't have them so they skipped it too. I also wouldn't be surprised if there's some NYC regulation or code that makes it extra complicated and expensive to add them.
In major cities you'll find that luxury units or condos have in-unit washer and dryer; but below luxury level apartments and condos do not. Nicer places will have a laundry on each floor. Others will have something in the basement or not at all.
It's an optimization that saves the owners significant amounts on up front and maintenance costs.
On the other hand, most people in trailer homes in the US will have a washer and dryer in their trailer. They aren't expensive appliances. They just take up space and require additional plumbing and ventilation - which can lead to significant expenses if you are designing buildings with 100's of units.
Definitely the default in NYC. Lived there 15 years and only had a washer/dryer in one apartment (which was a condo that I was subletting. Any friends I had over were amazed and jealous when they saw it). If you're lucky, your building has a laundry room in the basement. Less lucky and you use a nearby laundramat. One place I lived basically didn't even have a laundramat within a 10 minute walk, so I had to pay for a laundry service that would pick up/drop off.
Although the terms first, second and third world are often used to connote standards of living, that’s not the original sense[1] in which these terms were coined. They were Cold War era terms used to classify countries into Western bloc, Soviet bloc and the countries not aligned with either of the aforementioned blocks. And going by measure, the US could never be a 2nd world country :)
Less of a hygienic product for sure, bras spelled the end of corsets and really helped usher in many changes that led to a big increase in personal freedoms for women (both physically and socially).
Hey, I would love to learn more about this. How did bras usher in a bunch of physical and social changes in freedoms for women? I'm not too read-up on any of these topics but I'm incredibly interested.
Equally important is contraception and elective abortion. Being able to control the timing of raising a family allows a much higher degree of freedom and also ensures a safer and more healthy environment to raise a child.
I think the most important prerequisite to being a parent is the desire to be a parent.
While you make a good point, I wouldn't call condoms made using sheep intestines and a string to be a modern invention, as that dates to at least 1500s.
Not surprised you're getting downvoted around here for saying the abortion isn't healthcare. Techies can bury their heads in the sand about it because of their political correctness, but it doesn't change the fact that the procedure does not extend a child's life but ends it.
The crux of the debate is on whether a fetus is a child. Your ‘fact’ calls it that, but it’s one that is rooted in your beliefs rather than some larger truth.
From a completely objective and scientific viewpoint, I think it's incredibly difficult to posit that life begins at any other point other than conception. After that it's just a matter of how "done" they are. The Human gestation period has been known to be as little as 22 weeks [1] or as long as 53 weeks 4 days [2], while the standard time is 37-40 weeks. Given more technological advancements, perhaps the time could be even shorter.
I would say that given only this information, a fetus is a full human being at a minimum by 22 weeks. Now, by 10 weeks "all major structures are already formed in the fetus" [3]. So, if a fetus is not a "child" until 22 weeks (as it has viability out of the womb), but by 10 weeks has all the major components of a human, can you tell me at what point in-between does it suddenly become a child, and have a guaranteed right to life?
I don't think you can. If you use conception, you can point to the precise moment in time where every single human being that has ever lived or will live becomes a human being. I'm not sure how you can get any more scientific than that, but apparently it's easy to ignore for the sake of justifying abortion.
I agree with pads & tampons being a great invention. Can we however please finally stop referring to "2nd and 3rd world" countries. Get on a plane - things are more similar than different in most parts of the world, stop perpetuating dated notions.
On your last point: Having recently returned from rural africa where girls miss significant amount of school for lack of pads & tampons (still), I can't exactly agree with this sentiment.
As an alternative to "2nd/3rd" or "developing" countries, I really like the "Four Levels of Global Income" model[0] that Hans Rosling put forth in his book Factfulness[1] (a must-read IMO).
It gives a much clearer perspective on how people live (and as you mentioned, how similarly people live across the world amongst the same income levels)
These terms don't mean 2nd and 3rd tier countries. At least they didn't used to.
> The three-world model arose during the Cold War to define countries aligned with NATO (the First World), the Eastern Bloc (the Second World, although this term was less used), or neither (the Third World). Strictly speaking, "Third World" was a political, rather than an economic, grouping.
I actually didn't state anything about economic grouping. My point is the notion is dated - and you've illustrated that quite well with your comment. The eastern & non-aligned blocs dont exist any more & the first world has split into its own bloc-ish things, yet everyone is a lot more willing to play ball with each other than at any given time in history before.
Get on a plane? Please, I'm from a plane. Being able to live in these highly developed western countries is a massive privilege. And trust me, a lot of things you take for granted these days, say birth control pills or IUD for women, are still frowned upon and not the easiest to access in China unless you're married, despite its development in the last 20 years. And even relatives who are making good earnings still wash their dishes by hand and dry their clothes with air, restaurants and food handling have little health inspection standards unless you're at a 5 star hotel. And I'm not talking about the rural parts of China, I'm talking about some of the most developed cities.
It’s common for women in Japan to get their friends traveling abroad (to eg Taiwan or Vietnam) to bring them back eg birth control or the morning after pill. It’s expensive and typically not covered by insurance (problem 1), and extremely hard to get a prescription for because the doctor will likely be male and lecture you on how you should get married and have babies (problem 2).
2nd / 3rd world notions have nothing to do with GDP. There are plenty of countries (a lot of the middle east for example) that would have back when 2nd and 3rd world were relevant notions been considered 3rd world, these currently have some of the highest GDP (PPP Adjusted) per Capita ;)
Yes, but the parent didn't imply that the two necessarily correlate. All you showed was that developing countries can have a high GDP. Are there any countries considered first world that have a low GDP?
The process for making ammonia from air (nitrogen) and hydrogen. Allowed a huge increase in agricultural output that saved a few billion people from starvation.
Haber-Bosch process.
Sadly, in my professional opinion as a chemist, I would say that the the haber process, is not actually that simple, either in its original conception or as implemented now.
The description on Wikipedia makes it sound trivial if you have high-pressure, high-temperature plumbing, and a lot of risk tolerance. What is it leaving out?
Lab demo scale, sure. The research and testing of catalysts for the industrial scale was a significant part of the development effort. Lifetime of the catalyst, temperature and pressure of the reactor, input energy, and output rate were all considerations and the result was much more than just throwing some magnetite powder in a reaction chamber.
For anyone confused as to why: We (not just people but life on Earth) are mostly made of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen. Nitrogen was something of a bottleneck because it's so much less ubiquitous than the other three, which are three of the four most common elements in the universe.
I meant it in an "elements occurring in the universe" sort of way, but this is a great point too. If we could get at atmospheric nitrogen naturally, there'd be no bottleneck.
It's complicated. Helium does make the list, but lithium doesn't. Carbon and oxygen are higher than you'd expect if you're just going by atomic weight.
I remember from my astrophysics course that Lithium was formed in the aftermath of the Big Bang. I would imagine that interstellar space is full of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium.
I can imagine that stable nuclei such as carbon or iron would form as a result of stellar fusion but I would be hard pressed to imagine that these outmass the more primordial elements. I would be interested to see references if you have any.
Yeah but all the elemental matter in the universe is like three dust specks floating in a lecture hall. You can ask about the dust specks or the lecture hall interchangeably.
Great point. I almost missed this. It really seems like there should be another separation in the article I linked, between "Universe" and "Milky Way."
Grading the state of the Earth is subjective, what's good for plants or bacteria may be bad for mammals or fungi, and there's a few mass extinctions every million years anyway.
If you don't care about homo sapiens, then global warming isn't really "bad" - the ecosystems will adapt.
> May as well just say The Earth would be better off if people had never existed if you're going to go that route.
No, that most certainly doesn't follow. It's entirely usual and normal for an amount of something in a system to be fine but then an excess of the same thing to be not fine. This is a very common situation in medicine, for example.
It's also a common situation in the rest of population and community ecology. For instance, removing wolves as a predator here in Michigan has caused an explosion in the deer population. That, in turn, changed the makeup in undergrowth as they eat more now, which has all kinds of extended effects. Not to mention the propagation of diseases in a more sense population.
Worse. We are able to produce more calories on less land than would otherwise be required. If you check out some photographs of the countryside of the East Coast of the US, particularly, from the turn of the century, and then look at those places today, considerable reforestation has occurred.
Yeah I think he is wrong there. More people would work in farming than now but only like 1% of the population are farmers right now. 2% farmers covering atleast if not more than double the land area is not crazy.
Not to mention relying on natural processes and top soil health and would be extremely sustainable long term and be a huge carbon sink.
> The chart below shows data from the World Bank on employment in agriculture over time. Globally, about 1 billion people* work in the agricultural sector, about 28% of the population employed in 2018. This is down from 44% in 1991.
Currently 1/7th of the global population works in agriculture, and 28% of the employed population.
More land would necessarily be farmland (i.e. there'd be less land "free" to dedicate to other things); so there'd probably need to be more farmers to work the additional land. Even in the modern world where a farm is mostly robots, one person can only manage so much land and so many robots (essentially the amount of land they can easily traverse in a few hours to check up on.)
I think the point is that fertilizer makes it possible for big agriculture to operate at a certain scale.
If we didn't have fertilizer, farmers would be tending to smaller plots and using locally available fertilizers, such as locally available compost and mulch.
An almost unbelievable life history is Dr Pandurang Khankhoje who came to San Francisco from China in 1906,
got a PhD in agriculture from UC Berkeley and ended up in Mexico helping the farmers develop high-yielding varieties of corn and wheat before Dr Norman Borlaug.
https://www.livehistoryindia.com/cover-story/2020/02/09/dr-p...
Yeah but it is also a mixed bag because in order to satisfy the massive energy requirements we cheat by using fossil-fuel derived hydrogen which contributes to pollution and global warming. Without cheap fossil fuel hydrogen the energy costs of fertilizer production would rise multiple times over and likely dwarf every other industry in the world. Currently fertilizer production takes 1.2% of total world energy generation, but 10% or more without fossil fuel reagents is not unreasonable. 60% of the world's total crop yield is the direct result of fossil-fuel derived artificial fertilizer.
I’d like to recommend James Burke’s series “Connections”[1] and “The Day the Universe Changed”[2] from the late 70s early 80s.
He was a bbc journalist covering NASA and doing science communication and one of his particular fascinations (and mine, having grown up with his work) is the cumulative effect of ideas and technology shape not only how we interact with the modern world, but how we perceive it.
Fantastic and unique in that it cuts across what seem to be unrelated fields to show how one discovery, even accidental, can have enormous and profound implications.
Near the end it provides an answer to OP's question 'What's the most important modern simple invention?' although whether this in fact would be Burke's answer, I don't know.
(How did this cause the Industrial Revolution? It made weaving so much faster, that the spinning industry had to come up with machines to supply the weaving industry.)
> ... using treadles to raise and lower the heddles, which opened the shed in the warp threads. The operator then had to reach forward while holding the shuttle in one hand and pass this through the shed; the shuttle carried a bobbin for the weft.
That is a quite a bit of industry-specific jargon packed into a single paragraph. Without context this could easily be mistaken for Star Trek jargon.
Any woman born in England between 1200 and 1800 would have known all of these words except for being a bit nonplussed by “operator”. Most of the men, too.
This is an answer to the "most important invention" question I've never heard before, and it's a great answer for the "simple" qualifier too. I've never even heard of this device before.
Wow, I inherited a heavily used one of these from my grandmother 20 years ago, and never understood what it was. It was used in an odd way to hold dried flowers and plants, and I assumed it was some sort of Dutch tradition to do this. Now I know! Thanks for that. This makes my little memento that much more interesting.
Hand washing. Modern disease control and prevention is borderline magic. Hand-washing is clearly the most important lifesaving and disease preventing invention in modern times.
Materially ... Well, "yourself" precludes anything computerized, unless you mean "program". It also precludes a huge range of materials science advances.
Technically, you can make steel and concrete yourself with enough real-world minecrafting, and good steel or concrete is probably hands down the most important factor in all our chemical, structural, and industrial processes.
Luckily there's a book with the most important inventions to re-engineer a complex, sustainable society called The Knowledge, and just about everything in there is build-able by a determined individual or small group (until you get to modern things). Not suprisingly, it mostly focuses on agriculture, medicine, steel, and concrete.
This book should be called The Misinformation. It omits crucial safety information and other details about many of the processes it mentions, and the author doesn't maintain a public list of known errata; it's entertainment, not education.
Three better alternatives: the Primitive Technology channel on YouTube, the Boy Scouts Handbook, and Wikipedia, which you can download as .zim files for offline reference. Other relevant YouTube channels include AvE, CodysLab, and Applied Science; in more specific areas you have NileRed, Abom79, Ben Eater, EEVblog, This Old Tony, GreatScott, ElectroBOOM, and NurdRage. Unlike the book you're recommending, they are by people who know how to do the things they are explaining, show their errors, and include the relevant calculations. There are other channels like How To Make Everything and King of Random which do not; they are entertaining but deadly.
General-purpose know-how books have gone out of fashion, though we still have the CRC Handbook and the Machinery's Handbook. In the 19th century there were a bunch of books like Dick's Encyclopedia of practical receipts and processes (ripped off, I think, from Cooley’s, or possibly vice versa) which covers a wide range of topics at a level sufficient to enable you to practice them; you could probably build a fair bit of Victorian technology from the recipes in Dick’s. (You aren't going to get a loom out of it, though; for that, see The Mechanism of Weaving, but YouTube is far superior.) I think the equivalent is more difficult to-day.
I do think the author tried to relay concepts and hints, rather than recipes. Given the compactness, a group of people starting largely from scratch and taking the book on faith could figure out a lot of stuff.
> Hand washing. Modern disease control and prevention is borderline magic. Hand-washing is clearly the most important lifesaving and disease preventing invention in modern times.
I was recently in the hospital and was shocked at how often they used the hand-sanitizers.
The staff at all levels used them after literally everything.
I'm a former commercial pilot so I get the idea of having stuff drilled into your brain.
But I mean everyone from the food staff who delivered breakfast, to the orderlies who made the bed, to the doctors who touched nothing, would instinctively go to the anti-bacterial hand sanitizer on the wall, press it with their elbow, rub their hands, and leave the room.
The benefits of washing your hands depends on a fairly large set of other improvements and inventions.
For most of history the water available was frequently contaminated with human and animal waste, along with whatever your local tanner was dumping in. Fixing that was a prerequisite to making hand washing useful.
And then there is the soap issue. While soap certainly has a long history, it was often unavailable or prohibitively expensive. Cloths were traditionally washed with urine.
I wouldn’t call it a recent invention although it might be recent in the west, but plenty of cultures in South Asia, Iran, and muslim world (at the very least) considered hand washing crucial for basic hygiene.
People forget how cumbersome and/or expensive it was to write before cheap ball point pens became a thing. You had to use fountain pens. The cheap ones leaked and were an absolute mess to carry around. The ones that didn't leak were expensive.
I can now buy more pens for $100 than I'll ever use in years and just stash them everywhere I want
I just started exploring fountain pens (inspired by a previous HN posting), and the feature that appeals to me the most is the variety of ink colors available for fountain pens. Most ballpoint pens seem to have just a handful of ink colors, but it seems to be possible to get a lot more colors for fountain pens, and some of the colors are really exotic.
Also fountain pens draw really fast with almost no pressure and have such a consistent line. I've been making little musical drawings with them. https://tiktok.com/@whistlegraph
In case you missed it, there was a thread here yesterday about pen grip with a sub-discussion regarding left-handed writing and fountain pens: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22287679
I must write in a completely unnatural way, then. My hand is always completely below the current line of text. Which hand is writing simply cannot affect whether my hand touches just-written ink.
Edit: Just wrote some test lines, forward and backward. My whole hand is multiple lines down in the notebook. Writing in a way so as to get my pen-hand on the same line I'm writing feels incredibly weird to me. I think it just goes to show that whatever you get used to feels natural.
I have taken time to adjust habits in day-to-day activities. Luck seems to apply only insofar as I do not am neurally and physically typical enough that I can adjust these habits.
If you don't like something, especially if it's your own behavior (and writing style is absolutely a behavior), it is likely within your power to change it. Maybe you would need help from a coach or perhaps pharmacological or therapeutic if there is some pathology.
For me, it is always a no-brainer to change things that annoy me.
In Germany, as far as I know, everyone learns writing with foundation pens. You can search for images with „Schreiblernfüller“ to get an idea how they look.
I'm American and have lived in Germany a lot. In the 1970's in California, we learned to write with pencils.
By the time I was in high school and used pens (mostly ballpoints, some felt-tipped) and also typewriters, I thought of myself as a pretty serious stationery nerd.
Then I went to Germany and everybody at school used fountain pens, which I didn't even know how to fill! People probably thought I was an absolute barbarian, sticking to my ball-points.
Then came university: in America, at the end of the 80's, you would be considered rather unserious if you didn't at least type up your assignments. Computers were an option but the minimum effort was to type things, libraries had lovely quiet-ish electronic typewriters for that purpose.
And back I went to Germany, where -- at University! -- everybody was writing everything with those same damned Füller!
And now, in 2020, at least the kids still are. Drop into any McPaper[0] and you will see a ton of cheap plastic fountain pens for the school kids. (Fortunately for me, the roller ball has also taken pretty firm hold, and people don't look at you funny anymore for not carrying around an ink bottle.)
I have a really nice fountain pen, a Pelikan[1], and I almost never use it because I can't commit to thinking about the ink that much. In the end, the Germans out-nerded me.
I predominantly write with a ballpoint pen, however as an affection when I write letters (which is more often than you might think) I always use quality stationary and a fountain pen. I'm very American. I know it's not commonplace, but in many ways that's exactly why I do it. There's several rather successful businesses in the US that only supply fountain pen users and collectors, probably the most well known is the Goulet Pen Company https://www.gouletpens.com/
I have several fountain pens, and vastly prefer them to anything else for note-taking (even the pen for One?Note on my Surface Pro!) My favorite was made in 1947, and still works as well today as it did then. With care, it'll still work as well when it's 100, which is a fair fraction of how long I'm expected to last (at least statistically...)
I have a friend who's into fountain pens and for a while worked for a company that sells really nice ones. In that capacity he came to know some people who collect pens.
You'd be amazed. One guy I heard of -- not-famous founder of a very famous brand -- was so into it he'd spent tens of millions building his collection, but outside the world of serious pen enthusiasts it wasn't "worth" anything near that much.
A lot of the pens one collects are very limited editions but otherwise unremarkable: say a really good pen that would cost $500 but in a different color and they only make a thousand of them in that color and it costs $10,000. (Made-up numbers but $10K is not that much in the pen-collecting world.)
I'm in the UK. They're not common, but you do occasionally see them. I have one that I mostly use because I was taught to write in the italic style [0] of cursive, so mine has an Italic squared-off nib. I don't use it every day, however.
It cost me about £40, uses cartridges, and still manages to leak (blue, washable) ink on my fingers.
Fountain pens are the ultimate in no-waste - Clean them, refill them and keep using them. I have a handful, the oldest is 73 years old, but I have several that are around 50 years old. Cleaning, refilling with ink, and very rarely, a new nib (quality fountain pens have nibs coated with very hard metals that last for decades) keeps them going indefintely. Quality is worth the cost here, but by the late 1920s we knew how to build quality fountain pens that do not leak and definitely last!
When I discovered fountain pens and small-nib felt tip calligraphy pens I switched to them for all correspondence and most note taking; I only use ball point pens when I have to. Even round/bullet point felt tip pens are better.
I would love to see felt tip calligraphy pens developed with more ink and a longer life.
His story is so sad though. He was ostracized by the other doctors and medical community who didn't believe him and indeed openly mocked him. He remained outspoken about his findings until a colleague forced him into an asylum where he was beaten by the guards and died.
They didn't believe him in part because he was a notorious asshole, and in part because he was insistent on a root cause analysis of hand-washing that was clearly false. He also didn't "invent" handwashing, which was already the normal protocol by the time he began practicing; rather, his contribution was a particular antiseptic handwashing protocol (chlorinated lime).
How do you figure it was “clearly false”? Once his protocol was implemented, mortality rates from childbed fever plummeted. It turned out the reason so many people had been dying from it was that obstetricians were performing pathological observations on mothers who had died from it and then gone straight to delivering babies without disinfecting in between. This is readily available info on his wikipedia but also recently appeared in an episode of 99PI which is where I learned about it. I’d be interested to see more information presenting an alternative history.
Antiseptic handwashing wasn't false. His theory for why it worked was; that theory was that "cadaveric particles" --- literally, corpse particles, and very specifically not a more general concept of microscopic infectious agents --- were to blame for ailments, and that chlorinated lime was the only way to get rid of them. Other doctors noted things like ailments in patients with no plausible contact with cadavers, to no avail: Semmelweis was insistent.
Semmelweis is, to me, an interesting story about how it's not all that useful to be right if you're unable to persuade, and Semmelweis' difficulties with persuasion have little to do with his adversaries bloody-mindedness and much to do with his.
I can't tell whether you're saying Semmelweis was merely superficially disrespectful, or whether you're saying I'm being disrespectful. Can you reword this? I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
I listened to the Joe Rogan episode on victorian medicine and it made a weird sort of sense: Why wash your hands after being in the morgue if you were just going to get them dirty again with surgery?
EDIT: Joe Rogan Episode #1272 - Lindsey Fitzharris
I don't know if it's the most important, but it's a great example of how a very simple innovation had huge benefits. The Fitch Barrier are those big orange barrels you see on the side of the road. They're filled with sand inside, and basically help to dampen the momentum of a car that veers off the road.
They were invented in the 1950s by John Fitch, a Formula 1 driver who just came up with them as a quick and dirty way to make the race track safer. One afternoon's random idea has managed to save over 17,000 lives and billions of dollars in damage.
I would nominate Jersey barriers as well, they’re easy to mass produce and there are machines that lay them down. Many roads would be undivided if it were not for jersey barriers.
I owe my life to Jersey barriers. Around 1999 or 2000 I was driving an old Plymouth Barracuda (Slant 6 grandma's car, not a hemi monster) at 70 miles per hour in the fast lane on a freeway in Nevada. The car drifted to the left naturally because it needed an alignment and as I went to correct to the right nothing happened. The joint that connects the steering column to the steering gearbox had become disconnected. I didn't step on the brakes because they were also somewhat if he and might have sent me in any random direction!
Had it not been for the graduating slope of the jersey barrier I would have either gone over into oncoming traffic which was also doing 70 miles per hour or more, or I would have bounced back into traffic on my own side of the freeway with random results. I would not most likely not have survived.
Instead my front left tire caught the steepest graduation at the bottom of the jersey barrier which launched front left corner of the car up the barrier. But then a funny thing happened. I didn't flip over and I didn't go over it. Because the top section of the barrier is vertical I just came back down. This cycle happened several times until the car slowed down enough just to be sliding against the bottom of the barrier. At that point I was only doing about 30 miles per hour and could hit the brakes without worrying about what direction the brakes were going to take me. The car came to a stop. The only damage was a broken ball joint, a very messed up tire and wheel, and a bent fender lip!
A wrecker came and got me and delivered the vehicle to my house. I horse traded that car the very next week for an old Land cruiser that tried to kill me when it lost brakes, but that's another story. I drive better vehicles these days but only barely
Washing Machine. Recent iterations are more complex( repair engineer could plug into ours and diagnose all sorts of things, including checking results of previous washes), however the principle behind it isn't that complex. It has made life easier for so many households.
On the number of hours saved by Washing machines and Dishwashers. Liberating women from having to do these tasks and instead contributing to the general economy instead.
> the number of hours saved by Washing machines and Dishwashers.
This is true, but to some extent over-stated I think.
We have a family of five, and don't use our dishwasher. I just do the dishes every morning while I listen to the news on the radio. It takes less than an hour.
As far as washing machines, I agree that they are quite convenient, but the truth is most clothing doesn't need to be washed nearly so often as people do.
Without a washing machine, you would just do laundry less often.
I think modern plumbing is the actual time saver. Not having to haul water from the river or the well frees up a ton of time. Having waste water safely disposed of is a massive boon to hygiene.
I think if you spend close to an hour to wash dishes every morning, it's actually a good proof of how much time it could save you. Being able to use that hour productively with other means while you do it (e.g. listening to the news or podcasts in your case) is somewhat a separate topic.
Loading and unloading the dishwasher for the same amount of dishes every day will probably take less than 30 minutes. I would estimate you could have a savings of 30 minutes every day if you used the dishwasher. Depending on how you use water when you hand-wash them, you may also save some water as well.
> you could have a savings of 30 minutes every day
Maybe I'm unique in this (I don't think I am), but if anything the curse of modern life is that we're absolutely awash in free time.
What would I do with an extra 30 minutes? Probably check Hacker News or Facebook more than I already do.
The actual washing of the dishes really doesn't take that long. Most of it is gathering everything up, rescuing the sink from the disaster that my wife leaves it in (i.e. How hard is it to actually nest the dishes instead of building them into some precarious tower?), and then washing the various big and otherwise awkward items that you couldn't put in the dishwasher anyway.
If you want to get on the modern hype train, you can think of it as a "mindfulness" exercise. There is something therapeutic about having busy hands and letting the mind wander.
> If you want to get on the modern hype train, you can think of it as a "mindfulness" exercise. There is something therapeutic about having busy hands and letting the mind wander.
I don't mean to be gatekeepery here, but aren't "mindful" and "letting the mind wander" pretty much opposites?
"Wash every bowl, every dish as if you are bathing a baby - breathing in, feeling joy; breathing out, smiling. Every minute can be a holy, sacred minute. Where do you seek the spiritual? You seek the spiritual in every ordinary thing that you do every day. Sweeping the floor, watering the vegetables, and washing the dishes become holy and sacred if mindfulness is there. With mindfulness and concentration, everything becomes spiritual." - Thich Nhat Hanh, in "How to Eat".
"Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes." - Alan Watts.
It sounds more like the modern "productivity" hype train than the mindfulness one; "do two things at once, and distract yourself from life, if your eyes are busy, fill your ears, fill all your senses all the time".
> the disaster that my wife leaves it in (i.e. How hard is it to actually nest the dishes instead of building them into some precarious tower?),
mindfully criticising your wife in public for a cheap laugh. :eyes:
I will admit I don't really know where you're going with this since the two quotes you just gave line up pretty well exactly with what I thought I said.
Seems like you aren't so much responding to what I said as to what you wish I had said.
> Some things you can do in those extra 30 minutes
And which of those exactly would be something I could do in the hour that my kids are waking up and wanting me to get them breakfast / wipe their bottoms after they go potty / otherwise demanding things of me?
The thing I want to be doing at that time is listening to the radio. If I'm listening to the radio, then my hands are free.
We say that, but how much time to people spend just watching TV or Netflix? All of that is "free time". People just spend it without thinking and then lament their lack of free time.
Then what you're really saying here is that you think they're spending their free time wrong. Maybe they enjoy watching Netflix or playing games or whatever much more than you enjoy your zen moment of washing dishes and listening to the radio?
It's like me going for a Sunday ride on my bike (which I very much enjoy) and then telling other people that they shouldn't resent having to commute to work in rush hour every day.
There are lots of things you could do with 30 minutes. Meditate, a brisk walk, prayer, learn a new language, etc. I guess washing dishes is a form of meditation in the same way showering or shaving is, but man, I can’t imagine 30 hours of hand-washing dishes per month. That’s almost a week’s worth of a full-time job.
An HOUR? To do the dishes? That seems like an enormous consumption of time.
I would suggest that you might consider reallocating this time. For example, if you have three children are any of them old enough to help do the dishes? Initially it will take you more time, but children love to contribute to the household at first, until they are taught not to by being told they're doing it wrong.
> An HOUR? To do the dishes? That seems like an enormous consumption of time
You will note that I said "less than an hour", which in my life basically equates to "a trivial amount of time". Most days it's probably closer to a half hour.
It's also a fairly leisurely process of me listening to whatever they are talking about on the radio.
When the kids are bigger, I'm sure we'll teach them how to do the dishes and other chores around the house. For now, our oldest just turned four and is probably approaching big enough to grasp the concepts, but doesn't really have the attention span to see it through to the end.
IMO the main benefit of a dishwasher is giving you somewhere to stick dirty dishes that’s not the sink. I agree that it’s not particularly time consuming, and prepping dishes for the dishwasher and loading them probably takes about half the time of hand-washing anyway.
That only works if you actually empty the dishwasher. Sometimes the dishwasher turns into the cupboard, and it only gets emptied the rest of the way when the sink is full.
> ... but the truth is most clothing doesn't need to be washed nearly so often as people do.
Didn't exactly understand you ... I mean, I can't wear any shirt more than two days in a row before it picks up my body odour and starts stinking (India; hot climate - and this is after 2 baths a day too; no deodorant). So if I don't wash and wear it, I am pretty sure it would bother a lot of people. I can wear pants and trousers longer, sure, so they get washed less.
As a counterpoint, here in the US Midwest, I currently have three pairs of jeans, two thermal shirts, and two button downs that I rotate through and wash honestly maybe quarterly.
Other clothing items I go through more quickly, but I'm planning to start giving my undershirts a couple rotations before washing them as well. Same with socks.
The main thing I've noticed is that natural fabrics don't pick up smells nearly as badly as synthetics.
Also just letting things hang and air out seems to keep everything smelling pretty fresh. If I go out of town and leave clothes in my backpack they need washed when I get home whether I wore them or not.
Finally, I think odors are largely based on your skin biome and genetic factors, and fortunately for me, I just don't get that smelly.
Fox River Socks [1], which is a sock factory in my home town. Up until a year or two ago it was locally owned. The owner sold it to a larger holding company though. I think they still have a fair amount of local control though.
Faribault Woolen Mill [2], a maker of wool blankets in southern Minnesota, about an hour and a half from where I grew up.
To throw in a third, we made our own bed ~6 years ago out of wool batting from Shepherd's Dream [3], which is an Oregon-based wool seller. We are actually planning to order more this week to make another for our kids.
Quarterly washing of clothes is way too seldom for shirts. Jeans? I guess, if you never spill anything on them, etc. But things like shirts, socks, and underwear require washing essentially every time you wear them.
I assume my wife or kids would more than happily tell me. Particularly my kids since they find jokes about smelly things to be highly amusing. And they don't really understand the concept of being polite yet.
You can get a simple one that is probably 80% of the way to a modern commercial washing machine, and several orders of magnitude better than going to a stream and washing:
Thank you for that link. Right before reading your reply I was trying to remember where I read about how it changed women's life and this is actually that talk my memory had remains of.
The surface plate. Modern precision all stems from the concept of a flat reference. However, the technique to make a surface as flat as possible (which is based on simple geometry) was first discussed in the early 19th c.
In terms of profound impact on modernity, the metal screw-cutting lathe.
I disagree. The modern (read:1800s) horizontal milling machine was really what enabled the industrial revolution. The kinds of parts you can make cheaply on a lathe is much less diverse than on a mill with proper tooling. Don't get me wrong, you need parts with circles but all the other shapes are what really enabled the industrial revolution. Mills and the complex shapes they can quickly create allowed us to cheaply crank out the tooling to make all sorts of things.
I'd argue firearms are the most important mechanical devices, as they and their production led directly to interchangeable parts, mass production, and precision tooling of all kinds. The modern world is literally impossible without firearms. And yes, you can make crude firearms yourself, but good ones require more skill and capability.
I think the idea of grinding three surfaces against each other to make them flat dates to the Sumerians and may have been independently discovered in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica.
I seem to recall building small AM transmitters in elementary school. I don't remember if I used a transistor or not. I think it was easy to construct the capacitor and the inductor. (I build it in the early 70's and don't really remember how.)
We also made crystal diode radios, but I have no idea how to construct a diode from scratch, so maybe those are not simple.
Traditionally, one would have used galena (natural lead II sulfide) crystals. I also recall most "boys'" radios - the type you'd find in Cubs/Scouts/etc. handbooks - using a razor blade as the contact whisker, probably because it was the simplest way to get a small contact point and stiffness at the same time with materials a kid would likely have to hand.
Back when radioshack existed they used to sell kits where you could assemble a crystal radio out of a handful of simple parts. This was the first real project my dad and I ever did and I was just a little kid at the time.
One of those kits ended up being a growing up story of mine, and a lesson in unchecked hubris.
I was maybe 8-ish years old, and trying to follow the instructions to wire together a crystal radio with one of those Radio Shack electronics kits. My stepdad - who had only recently become such, and to my assumption at the time was just some dumb hick mechanic - volunteered to help me troubleshoot.
Being the bratty child I was, and being frustrated by my inability to figure it out even with the "easy" diagram (let alone actual schematics, which might as well have been hieroglyphs to me), I snapped back at him "I'm ten times smarter than you!" and stormed off.
Not 5 minutes later he calls me back in, triumphantly presenting a working crystal radio.
Turns out my "dumb hick mechanic" of a stepfather was actually once upon a time a technician for Nakamichi, and specialized in fixing their receivers. That little crystal radio was trivial compared to the sorts of circuits he used to repair for his day job.
That was 20 years ago and he still gives me shit for it, lol
The tables did turn on that more recently, when he was having trouble with his computer (an ancient-by-today's-standards Dell Optiplex running Windows XP); his power supply died, so I bought him a new one, but after he installed it he wasn't able to boot into Windows anymore. I figured maybe whatever blew the PSU also blew the hard drive (I've seen that happen before), so next time I was at his place he handed me the tower to take home and diagnose/rebuild.
As he's handing it to me, it dawns on me, "Well wait just a second..."
On the spot, I popped open the case, took a quick look at the hard drive, plugged in the Molex cable, put the cover back on, and handed it right back to him.
Hearing the words "Alright fucker, we're even" made my week.
Wow, that brings back some memories. I built one of those too. It was a crystal radio with no need for batteries. I used that little radio for years to listen in bed until I fell asleep.
You don't need to know anything about Maxwell's equations to build a functioning radio. There are plenty of do it yourself books from the 1920s and 30s that explain in great detail how to do it including how to make rectifiers for battery charging, winding coils to get the right inductance, calculating the length of wire needed for the aerial and so on, together with the simple formulae that are needed.
There's reasonably good evidence to suggest that the first radio was invented before there was widespread acceptance of these so-called "waves" that Maxwell's ridiculous maths seemed to predict - before either Hertz or Lodge had managed to prove that they were anything other than artifacts of Maxwell's electromagnetic model. A certain David Hughes demonstrated transmission over a distance, but it was just written off as induction. And one could even presume that radio would have been inevitable, even without a preexisting theory of it, based entirely on barometers lighting up in thunderstorms; it only needed Volta's pile or a simple generator - some source of current on demand - and some experimentation with electricity before the phenomenon was noted and then deliberately employed.
Article notes that it was 1970 that the idea was had and patent application filed, not an original idea in 1987. But your point stands.
It's a good link though, as it also tells the story of how the luggage-with-wheels idea was hated on by people who heard about it. The story here isn't that it took so long to think of the idea, but that it took a long time for anyone to actually want it.
> So why did it take so long for wheeled luggage to emerge? Mr. Sadow recalled the strong resistance he met on those early sales calls, when he was frequently told that men would not accept suitcases with wheels. “It was a very macho thing,” he said.
A few weeks ago I was going through some stuff in our storage unit and found an originally very nice suitcase. It's of no value to me now because it has no wheels.
Imagine how much more difficult air travel would be without the wheels!
Imagine it? I've been living it and it's so much better. Try to get from one side of O'Hare to the other for your connection leaving in 20 minutes with a rolling suitcase vs with a comfortable medium-large backpack.
Boarding flights is easier, getting around outside is easier (try rolling your suitcase around the cobble streets of Paris), fitting into tight restaurants is easier.
Look into /r/onebag if you want to learn more. Check out the Minaal, it's literally life-changing if you travel often.
Wheeled checked luggage is nice when I'm on a trip that requires a lot of year. (Because of outdoor activities or whatever.) However, for typical trips I just take a carry-on travel backpack and a small bag for electronics/camera even for trips that are 2-3 weeks. IMO, most people travel with way too much stuff.
I don't have to imagine it. We had 2 massive suitcases when I was a kid that were built like tanks. You actually had to be pretty thoughtful when you put them into the trunk because of their size.
But here's the thing. You pulled up to the terminal back then, parked, got out. Walked away from the car and checked your bag right there on the sidewalk if you weren't getting there at some weird hour and then said bye to whoever dropped you off and they left. You walked inside and checked into your flight and didn't have to think about luggage until you got to wherever.
When you got to your destination, there were a bunch of luggage carts and you'd throw in 25 cents or 50 cents or whatever and get one, load up whatever and take it to the shuttle or car rental. If you were feeling rich, you'd just leave the cart and not worry about getting your change back. If you were feeling like a cheapskate you could take the cart to a return and get some or all of your change back.
Picking someone up? You parked the car, went inside the airport, went through a metal detector and had your change/wallet/purse x-rayed and walked right up to the gate and waited for their plane to pull up.
I remember one time we picked up my grandparents and my dad was a state police officer. We went through security, he put his gun and badge (out of uniform) on the conveyor belt, no one freaked out, they checked his police ID against his face, made me push a button on my pager to show them it was a real electronic device and told us keep moving. Then in that area, there was some smoke coming from the ceiling outside. No panic, no evacuation, some fire fighters pulled up outside and came in through a gate, poked around at the ceiling tiles and decided everything was ok while everyone just casually sat around. This would have been 1997 probably, dad died in early 1998 and I don't think I had the pager in 1996 (context: my father had bought a pager and payed for service in advance, then as a detective the department gave him one so they used it to reach me when I was out and about on my bike or at a friend's and someone was on the internet).
I’d normally agree except the copy cat effect is strong these days. School shootings in US are the counter example where little changed after Columbine and now we have them weekly or so.
We don't have Columbine-style school shootings every week. Maybe gang shootings involving students, but that's a separate problem with completely different cultural roots.
It needed development of tough plastics to become practical. Until very recently you had to be careful to get bags where the wheels wouldn't snap off eagerly.
The modern idea of a library catalog came around in the early 1800s, and probably accelerated the pace of knowledge transfer and acquisition quite a bit. In its original form, index cards, it was ubiquitous for almost 200 years before being replaced by computerized systems.
The most astounding thing about bicycles is that we did actually get it right. looking at the first ~100 years of iteration, you'd kind of assume that it was one of those things that would just keep evolving forever. But then they found the classic diamond frame design, and bikes have been fundamentally the same since then.
Feels kind of asymptotic to me: they got most of the basics right 100 years ago, but things like derailleurs are a pretty big improvement in terms of allowing an ordinary person to ride over varied terrain. Quick release skewers (grazie a Tullio Campagnolo), lighter materials, clipless pedals (for racers)... have all been incremental improvements. More recently, tubeless tires on mountain bikes are a big improvement in my enjoyment of riding off road.
You could also argue that the political necessity in competitive cycling to maintain its status quo (thus not allowing recumbents and the like) has forced us into a local maximum that we cannot easily exit.
people have been trying to make linkage forks a thing since forever ago, and it never pans out. For all the claims that telescoping suspension isn't very good, there's still nothing better.
> The main problem with conventional forks is that they can’t separate bump forces from braking forces.
> As a result, a conventional fork dives under hard braking. As weight’s transferred to the front wheel, the fork springs compress. This uses up fork travel that would otherwise be available for bumps, which is bad enough. But wait, it gets worse...
> Brake dive also shortens the wheelbase and changes the rake angle. In a perfect world, engineers would certainly rather not change those parameters in mid-corner!
This makes braking mid-corner a risky proposition, which leads to accidents when riders encounter surprises mid-corner.
In the motorcycling world this is being worked around by computers, so we're not likely to see an alternate front suspension, unfortunately. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHRWg91hv-M
This seems like it’s talking about front forks with suspension though? Only mountain bikes have that, and in the terrain they are made for it works well. On the road mountainbikes are terrible in numerous ways.
What's kind of fascinating is that sport motorcycles have all reached a similar design too, except they were all influenced by a racing rule that said the fairings couldn't extend forward of the front axle. Before that, motorcyles were tending towards football-shaped.
Even the artist just says "an important part of its frame".
If I had to guess, it's a bar connecting the back wheel's harness-thing with the gear to maintain a consistent distance. If someone sat on that, I think the wheels would flex out, the chain come loose, etc.
Well, you can certainly assemble a bike from a pile of components, a pair of wheels, and a frame (try and do that with a sedan...) And it's not beyond most people to learn how to weld or braze a frame together from tubing (or even glue up carbon fiber or bamboo into a frame, at room temp). But smelting the steel and aluminum at home to make the parts is admittedly not practical.
Not only not practical -- essentially requires a highly refined metal industry to begin with, as I understand it.
It's no surprise the first mass producers of bicycles were weapons manufacturers -- they were the ones with the high quality steel supplies and equipment that allowed for tight tolerances.
There are people on youtube who refine their own ores. They are lucky enough to live in a place where ore is close to the surface - not high quality ore, but with enough that for a youtube video you can get a small quantity of pure metal out. (high quality ore is either deep in the ground or already mined). For iron the process is actually simple, knowledge of iron refining likely predated the bronze age, but quality iron ores were too hard to come by to make it useful. (bronze is in much less quantity overall, but where there was was easy to find)
Edit: I won't discount the advances in iron refining though. the methods known thousands of years ago were not suitable to large scale production. It is hard to say if they would have made those advances if ore was available or not.
Fire is old. Electricity-- or at least it's control -- not so old, but I'm not sure I'd count it as simple. Making a functional battery or generator that doesn't just create or store trivial amounts energy is quite a challenge.
I know, I know - overhyped. But you know what's a funny thing? It's incredibly basic tech. Stepper motors and thermoplastic. We could have had something like it at pretty much any time over the past century, and in its modern form from about 1960 or so. It has unquestionably revolutionized prototyping and short-run manufacturing, and we just didn't think of it. The idea was just too zany and expensive - the people with enough money to invent a 3d printer could afford to just pay someone to make their prototype by hand. It's a rare modern example of the "ancient greek railway problem"; Hellenistic culture posessed all the technology to begin making crude steam trains, and almost certainly had the technical drive to approach making practical ones, if only they had thought of it or considered it a worthwhile thing to do.
(Although there is the interesting question of data management. The .gcode for a small print can still run into the megabytes. CAD software was thin on the ground in 1970 too. So maybe therein lies the difficulty - what good is a 3D printer if you must painstakingly transcribe your blueprints into movement instructions by hand?)
I respectfully disagree. 3D printing has not lived up to its hype or potential. The process is slow and sensitive to conditions. The commercial applications are relatively limited. It has radically transformed rapid prototyping, which is very important. But it's hard to compare it to the ubiquitous daily utility of paperclips or even velcro.
I have much more hope for the next generation of 3D printing, whatever that is
It has also transformed hobby/craft markets and arts. The only thing stopping it is UX at this point (you still need to have both craft and computer skills to use them).
I have very little use for paperclips, actually, but if I needed one, I could easily 3D print it. And that ability - to imagine things and have them come out of the machine - gives the magical empowering feeling that most of the people still have yet to encounter.
I disagree that it's a simple invention, though. The hardware is simple, yes, but it's nothing without software. And the software we need to make 3D printing less of an exercise in patience is simply not yet there, even now.
CAD is not accessible. Slicing is not accessible (sure, Cura will spit G-code without you doing anything - but what do you do when your print fails or falls apart because one of the myriad settings was not set right for this particular print?). Mesh leveling was not a thing on consumer 3D printers five years ago (!). Ditto for variable-width layers. And no slicers have the printhead follow curves in 3D, it's layer by layer in everything I've used, even if the model allows for something more.
What I'm saying is that that we don't have the software to utilize the existing simple hardware to its fullest potential. And without software, a 3D printer is a glorified glue gun.
(Sure, we could've had "3D-printing" pens a-la 3Doodler decades ago. They are fun, but hardly revolutionary).
> I have very little use for paperclips, actually, but if I needed one, I could easily 3D print it.
Out of curiosity, how good would a 3D printed paperclip be compared to the metal ones I am used to? I suspect the performance would be significantly worse due to material properties.
You could make it stronger and more durable, but it will definitely be larger and heavier if you make it out of PLA, and more expensive than a bit of bent wire if you FDM it.
>and more expensive than a bit of bent wire if you FDM it
Yeah, but the whole point of 3D printing is that you can make small-scale custom runs that would be exorbitantly expensive with traditional manufacturing.
You can have paperclips that double as markers/tags/have your name on them/send a message, e.g.[1].
Same goes for other things. 3D printing is a way to make custom things at small scale on demand, but automating away most of the steps after the design stage.
CNC wire bending is a lot better than 3-D printing for small-scale custom runs of custom things at small scale on demand, automating away most of the steps after the design stage. But the sets of designs you can make with the two processes are almost disjoint.
I sort of agree, however there are ways to print metal parts via a sintering process, and if your printer doubles as CNC to cleaning up critical surfaces even better. They just cost a lot of money, but that is changing, just like 3d printers becoming cheaper as the required parts become common commodities.
The assertion that "we just didn't think of it" is not even remotely correct. The late transition to the consumer market and the broad expansion in industry in the last 20 years has far more to do with the expiration of patents in the early 2000's than anything else. 3D printing for rapid prototyping has been around for decades.
Further still, the control software has only recently become efficient enough at the same time that computation is cheap enough to make slicing 3D models a minutes task instead of a months task.
Still, I think some of my point can still be salvaged - this implies that it was patented in the early 80s, which by my reckoning is still well after it became possible.
Possible, yes. Economically viable for the vast majority of applications, no.
In undergrad in 2001 I had a professor that had a 3D printed airplane model with a wingspan of ~5" that he thought was so damn cool (it was some now-defunct military airplane he helped design or something). He was also very fond of pointing out that the model cost his former employer $500 to print, so we better handle it with care. And rightfully so, because if we treated it like a toy it would have fallen apart in under a semester. Compared to what I print today using my MK3s for, I dunno, 50 cents, his $500 printed airplane was a piece of crap.
Point is there have been a lot of technological advances, patents aside, that have made 3D printers viable for anything outside of extremely high-value rapid prototyping / mold forming / other narrow niche applications in the last 20 years.
IMO the invention of microstepping controllers made 3d printing possible; and when they started getting cheap enough for hackers to play with is when all the previous ideas became practical to implment, and then got patented.
There's something to be said for the availability of cheap, high precision stepper motors: these things were a much bigger deal to acquire and control not that long ago.
I followed the RepRap blogs closely during the late noughties, up to about 2010, and there was a lot more to it than just thinking of it, even 20 years after the FDM patent. The use of PLA simplified a lot of curling problems, but even so, rafts and brims were also necessary inventions without heated beds. The pinch gear extruder design took a lot of debugging. It took them years to get a reliable hotend design because they didn't know about Kapton, which also helped a lot with bed heating. Bed leveling, stringing, and filament diameter consistency were hugely underestimated problems. And a lot of trial and error was needed to get good slicing and PID parameters.
The end result of all this, plus some design errors from learning mechanical engineering as they went, was that for many years the mean time between failures on a RepRap was a few hours.
Other than that, yeah, you could have done it with a $30k PDP-8.
Plastic 3d printers are not that amazing. Sure you can prototype a bit faster but we have wonderful methods of mass producing plastic parts very cheaply and quickly. 3d printing of plastic is not that revolutionary for the industry.
Metal 3d printing is a different story, if that gets cheap enough it will be a real game changer. It's very expensive to make metal parts from solid and you can't use casting except for certain metals. If you could 3d print accurate steel parts cheaply and quickly it could actually replace expensive deductive production processes.
Maybe not "most important", but a few dollars worth of post-it notes can turn any wall into a "business application" that can potentially cost thousands to turn into code.
I don't know if you were being sarcastic, but the post it note meetings only provide illusion of getting things done and they can often be destructive if not conducted well or relied on too heavily. Your mileage will vary of course.
If it's off, it's likely less than an order of magnitude off. It's based on the numbers in the video, which he states as half a trillion cans a year from 2015. If anything, I'd guess the number is a touch low.
My dad worked in a plant growing up, right before college my summer job was cleaning the washing ovens to "make sure I value my education and don't drop out." Amazing to see the aluminum pucks and machinery and get up close and take it apart to clean it, I don't think my dad was worried after the foreman asked him if I was going to be mechanical engineer.
Indoor plumbing: make sanitation so convenient that you don’t have any reasons not to use it (vs throwing the old night bucket outta the window). Obviously city scale sanitation == no dysentery, cholera...etc.
I was impressed with the sophistication of the one present in Glanum, a small (but wealthy) Roman provincial town abandoned in the 2nd century. The sewer system runs underneath the main street: baths, villas, and the abatoir connect to it.
To say nothing of the ones in major cities of the time.
That doesn't mesh with my experience. When I moved from the UK - where windows open outwards and its not really possible to have screens - to the countryside in mainland Europe where mosquitoes and flies are much more common, one can buy mosquito nets for windows from the supermarkets. I don't regret that purchasing decision at all - being able to have the window open at night in summer means I can actually get some sleep :)
Back then, it also meant coast to coast communications were almost instantaneous. And soon after, transatlantic cable-enabled telegraph boosted commerce between America and Europe.
I think the concept (rather than an invention) of negative feedback is very important. By that I mean envisioning that a machine can change it's own behaviour. This seems to have not been understood with early steam engines. People had to manually control valves to operate the first steam engines used as pumps in the U.K. James Watt and Mathew Bolton realized that coupling the output to the steam control valve would make it cycle automagically,
This concept permeates modern design so we don't always see it for the important development that it is IMHO.
Mosquito net. Modern cities may not find use for them but there is a pretty big chunk of world's population for whom this simple item is indispensable. Its cheap. Protects against diseases like malaria, dengue etc. And definitely helps with getting a good sleep.
Many villagers in India build it themselves for the community and i hope it stays that way. I know its is popular in the subcontinent (India,pakistan, bangladesh, sri lanka.) Would love to know if other countries also use them
Musical staves aren't after 1700, though. The five line staff we used today was widespread by the 16th century, and staff notation goes back to the 11th century.
> A twistlock and corner casting together form a standardized rotating connector for securing shipping containers. The primary uses are for locking a container into place on a container ship, semi-trailer truck or railway container train, and for lifting of the containers by container cranes and sidelifters.
You might already be familiar with it, but I can heartily recommend the book The Box by Marc Levinson [1]. It describes how a simple idea of putting items in a container first, instead of directly on a ship, completely changed the world. It is for example the reason why Oakland and New Jersey eclipsed San Francisco and New York as ports. When Malcolm McLean, the inventor of the humble container, died in 2001, container ships all over the world, at an agreed moment, sounded their horns in tribute.
I was going to post the standardized shipping container myself. It was apparently a massive boost to transportation efficiency when the industry moved to a standard container that a single simple crane could rapidly load and unload from any ship and load onto a truck or railcar. It seems that, before this, most goods were transported in barrels or other one-off small containers loaded and unloaded from ships by manpower. Could take weeks to load and unload a ship.
The cargo container: it has changed the entire planet culturally, economically and geopolitically. It would be hard to count the percentage of every day objects most people use world wide that owe their availability or existence to that standardized metal box.
Sure but having a massive steel box that can be craned onto a truck or train provides a lot of value. So does the fact that the boxes are indistinguishable and locking. Theft by stevedores used to be a massive global tax on trade.
I find Philips brand bulbs appear to have circuitry to "smooth out" the voltage and provide consistent light levels. I use my phone camera's slow motion mode to record my bulbs and see the flicker. Every brand I've tested via the above method, save for Philips, have suffered from flicker.
Give Philips a try? May just be worth the premium. Hopefully a standard like the one mentioned in a comment below is put into place.
There are LED bulbs this doesn't apply to. The flicker is so intense, damaging, and nauseating that people have tried to make standards to help get rid of it:
This isn't the LED itself. It's the circuitry running current through the light emitting material. Unlike incandescents and fluorescents where the medium itself smooths out poor signal from the circuitry, LEDs show you the quality of the signal going in.
Then there's the question of whether the color emission mix is designed so that your eye perceives it as an approximation of a blackbody spectrum. That's an issue of matching doping to our biology and one of those things that I think is just about settled in decent quality bulbs.
Once the doping mix and the quality of circuitry is fixed, the incandescent lightbulb is at best an historical curiosity.
I’ve gotten used to LEDs but I recently picked up an incandescent night light bulb- 25 watts for a dim glow. It gets really warm! 25 watts is an absurd amount of power. And people light rooms with multiple 60s! That’s bonkers
It's not as simple as you'd like, but the little known Bosch-Haber process, which produces ammonia for farming, staved off mass famines and may be why many readers of HN are alive today.
Looking at the long-term consequences might be illuminating, though that presupposes agreement on what that long-term consequence is.
If it is a high, stable, prosperous, and happy population, sustainable over the long term, arguably good.
If you start deviating from these criteria, things don't look so good.
H-B has given us "large. Is that population stable? Is it prosperous (and if so or if not, where and why)? Is it happy? And is it sustainable over the long term? If not, what does the end-stage look like, and how does it compare to the status quo ante*, prior to H-B?
As with tackling complex projects, addressing difficult questions sometimes becomes more tractable when decomposed into sub-problems and components.
As with mathematical proofs, sometimes presuming one result, then walking that to its inevitable conclusions, leads to a proof by contradiction.
The condition "you can pretty much build it yourself" forces me to exclude many things with important impact like for example nuclear reactors, LSD, birth control pills, and the silicon transistor. But I think steam engines (or Rankine cycle engines in general) and penicillin are simple enough to qualify.
When I read Alexander Shulgin, the psychedelic chemist’s biography, I was struck by the fact that when he wanted to do LSD with some friends, he actually synthesised it in his lab.
Yeah, Shulgin was a special case, he was a genius biochemist after all. And there are of course lots of people who have synthesized LSD using fairly standard lab equipment. But it's not like something anyone could do.
Depends heavily on your definition of "build yourself"...
The airplane is a big one and I'm building one myself in my garage, as did the inventors of the first airplane.
Hell, a solid chunk of all other inventions were created in someones garage. Compared to a full scale airplane, making nuclear reactors or transistors yourself is even easier and the transistor is easily the single biggest invention of the past century.
I was thinking that growing a penicillin producing mold culture (like Fleming did) is something anyone could do, but I have to admit that I have no clue about how much more processing is needed before it can be applied medically as an antibiotic.
Ah, the problem is that modern inventions are really embedded in a practice and theory. The invention may be simple but the practice and theory are not.
So I would put up soap as a contender. Simple, saves hundreds of thousands of life, prevents diseases and so forth.
But soap, as an invention, is embedded in the modern practice of washing, which requires our modern knowledge of germs and diseases, as well as our modern effective plumbing system to bring the clean water and dispose of the dirty water.
Of course if it didn't require those it wouldn't be modern.
"The earliest recorded evidence of the production of soap-like materials dates back to around 2800 BC in ancient Babylon." [1] Soap is not a modern invention and its usefulness in cleaning was recognized way before modern knowledge about diseases.
And arguably, soaps available in shops are getting worse with every iteration. Enter a big store in most of the developed world, and you can hardly find a regular soap bar anymore (only liquids, "hydrating bars", etc.). Craft markets still have them luckily.
With liquid soap I always feel like I can never fully remove it from my skin, no matter how long I rinse it with water afterwards. With a soap bar my hands just feel cleaner, less greasy. They also last longer and are easier to store/transport, need less packaging, etc. Also basic soap bars have two or three main ingredients whose effects are fully understood and have been used for centuries if not millenia. The list of components of the latest liquid soaps is far more obscure, no-one knows their long-term effects on us and the environment.
I hope you see you’re making my point. Soap without the hygiene practices isn’t soap with hygiene practices. And those practices are predicated on a theory of germs
The development, and successful commercialization, of the ballpoint pen is a really interesting hole to dive down.
John Loud is like check this cool thing I made, it doesn't really work though. Laszlo Biro comes along and makes it viable, everyone tries to rip him off, then Marcel Bich comes along and is like "Biro, let me have that, everyone sit down Bic has this!".
Not saying it didn't have an impact, but I'm nitpicking about the impact it had on how we spend our time: "Marchetti's constant is the average time spent by a person for commuting each day, which is approximately one hour. [...] Ever since Neolithic times, people have kept the average time spent per day for travel the same, even though the distance may increase due to the advancements in the means of transportation."
I would say the internal combustion engine has not meaningfully cut people's day to day travel. Where prevalent, many just live further away and travel a long time still. I understand that long distance travel has been revolutionized by engines (steam and internal combustion), but I'm not certain about day to day travel. Many people near me are in a car for multiple hours per day. I would love to see a study on average 'commute' times in the 17-1800s.
How about electromechanical relay switch. As far as digital electronics goes, relay can, with some mental gymnastics, be considered grandfather of transistor (which, in turn, is one of the most important inventions of all time, but too complicated).
Sort of implies that electricity was really the important innovation, to warrant the need for soldering? (Unless I'm totally missing the important application of soldering.)
I'd argue basic electric applications are pretty simple, and easily made by hand.
Sort of implies that copper smelting was really the important innovation, to warrant the need for electricity?
In all seriousness though, the printed circuit board might be a good one to bundle with that. The old methods of creating a mechanically robust compact electrical package were nowhere near as efficient. They're also very recent and very easy to make yourself, even if it's thin plywood with tinfoil glued on.
But I think that soldering (and the PCB, as @AWildC182 pointed out) facilitated certain widespread uses of electricity like radio and television that wouldn't have been democratized quite the way they were without it. i.e. TVs and radios would've had to hew to size and assembly labor restrictions of screw terminals and such.
Does standardization count as an invention? Then I'd put the metric system higher than shipping containers.
I'm not sure "you can pretty much build it yourself", either. The actual process is pretty involved [1]. Even if each step is simple, it's a lot of work, and building a large 3D object to precise specifications is not easy.
On that note, though, I submit arc welding as a simple modern invention of great importance. Living in a city, it's rare that I'm not within 2 steps of some object that was joined with arc welding. The basic structure of an arc welder is really simple: an electric current, a wire feeder, and some way (like a noble gas) to protect it.
I'm late to the party, but I think the winner is the bra.
Wikipedia says:
> The Dresden-based German, Christine Hardt, patented the first modern brassiere in 1899. Sigmund Lindauer from Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, Germany, developed a brassiere for mass production and patented it in 1912. In the United States, Mary Phelps Jacob received a patent in 1914 for the first brassiere design that is recognized as the basis for modern bras.
> A bra is one of the most complicated garments to make. A typical design has between 20 and 48 parts, including the band, gore, side panel, cup, apex, neckline, underwire, strap, ring, slider, strap join, and closure.
And of limited use without something to hook it up to.
The toilet itself is an input (or depending on your perspective, output) device. Without the additional process it's connected to, it doesn't buy you much.
London's first flush toilets were connected to existing cesspits, in the late 19th century. Connection to the (storm-water-handling) sewers was an unauthorised hack by plumbers of the day. Tim Harford has covered this in his podcast on major inventions.
I'm not sure about the whole "build it yourself" part, but the "Bessemer process" for making steel was a simple innovation improving on something that existed but made it so much more affordable that many experts think it was a significant contributor to a "second" industrial revolution.
Equally important is contraception and elective abortion. Being able to control the timing of raising a family allows a much higher degree of freedom and also ensures a safer and more healthy environment to raise a child.
I think the most important prerequisite to being a parent is the desire to be a parent.
https://www.awazeuttarpradesh.com/blog/1337x/
The basic ground breaking conceptual innovation is - "self serve".
The innovations with respect to tools - either support or serve that basic need.
All hygiene tools - Nail cutters, Contact Lenses, tooth pick, soap, tooth brush, shaving blade may fall in this category.
If we step little outside - I feel bicycle is one of the biggest innovation which triggered modern day - self serve - without depending on/troubling animals.
Liquid soaps are a poor choice from an environmental/cost standpoint. Most of the soap goes down the drain and is wasted. Bar soap stays on your hands and last many times longer.
That may be the case now, but liquid soaps revolutionized laundry when they came to be. Washing clothes with bar soap is a royal pain. Powdered laundry detergents really didn't start to catch on until the 1940's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laundry_detergent
Also, washing machines didn't really start to catch on until the mid 1940's, prior to that it was still pretty much scrub boards. Scrub boards are bad enough with liquid soap.
I found soap nuts to be the cheapest, most eco-friendly, and reasonably efficient detergent there is. Just drop a bunch of soap nuts in a cloth bag into the washing machine, and it produces enough foam to make everything clean.
At the risk of being controversial, perhaps the most modern simple invention is the internet and its ability to let randoms ask a basic question and have a thousand people contribute hundreds of cumulative man-hours to answering it.
(Maybe I'm being cynical, but I feel like the OP is asking this question for reasons beyond pure curiosity.)
Would be interesting to hear about most famous inventions in other countries. From Sweden, or Swedish inventors: Dynamite. The sun valve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_valve). The milk separator.
Tetrahedron-shaped plastic-coated paper carton packaging. The self aligning ball bearing. All these were part of early history of what became larger companies existing to this day.
The adjustable spanner, the zipper and the propeller are also sometimes mentioned in this category within Sweden, but are the also referring to inventors with partly Swedish origin or for improvements of previous designs.
I can't believe they never implemented metric time and dates (calendar). Now we seem to be forever* stuck with what we have - a glaring inconsistency in some fundamental units of measurement.
* Forever is a long time; after several civilizations crumble and rebuild, perhaps there will be an opportunity.
Metric time and dates notably fail to work with the observed motion of the Solar system. The time metrics we use are determined by the rhythms of the Earth, Moon, and Sun. Metric time offers no benefit. (And for the record, Napoleon tried to decree decimal dates and times, but even the French weren't having any of that crap...)
> "There is no limit to the weight that humans can lift by sheer muscle power. Nor is there a limit to the height to which this weight can be lifted. The only advantage that [powered] cranes have brought us is a higher lifting speed."
We moved to engines because they were cheaper, not because we were anywhere near the limits of muscle power.
The reason they have a higher lifting speed is because they have more power. In a directly proportionate sense. Lifting speed is literally power divided by weight.
Interestingly, the Romans might have entered the steam age if their empire had lasted just another few decades - there's a lot of evidence they were on the verge of an industrial revolution - look at their early water-powered textile and grain mills, which weren't seen again for centuries.
Very interesting proposal. I actually remember hearing some professor (of some sort of biological/sociological background) describe birth control as arguably creating a new species as far as females go because never before did they have any sort of reliable control over their reproduction. He actually believed that it was such an incredible event in human history that we have yet to fully understand its total impact on society and that we should consider modern women as fundamentally different now - to such a large degree that he considers them a new species of human females.
The phonograph. The idea of "record something and play it again later" has significantly impacted all of our lives, and was barely even imagined prior to invention
My dad still uses the family (his dad's) rice cooker from the mid 1950s, so they aren't that complicated, they're basically a heater and thermal cutoff
PSA for anyone who doesn't: Wash your fucking rice
Even better: use no-wash rice. It's easier for you, and better for the environment:
> [...] believe it or not, the cloudy water consumers pour off when washing their rice has been identified as a significant source of water pollution in Japan. In the B.G. method [used to make no-wash rice], the bran comes out dry, so instead of going out with the wash water and ending up in rivers and streams, it can be diverted into fertilizer and animal feed.
and:
> It’s considered enough of a problem that the Tokyo Metropolitan Government urges residents to water plants with their togijiru [cloudy rice water] rather than sending it down the sewer. And Shiga Prefecture, in an effort to protect Lake Biwa, has asked its citizens to switch to no-wash rice.
What? Sure, if you want to remove some of the starch, but what if you don't? I don't really know why you should if you don't want to, unless it was dirty, but rice today comes pretty clean of debris and bugs. Plus, it's going to be cooked, so no problem there.
It's not for safety: it's because starchy rice sticks together and makes clumpy bad-tasting rice, it's also much more easily seasoned in my experience if you wash it first.
Well i'd say dossy is right. Because he's assigning "Rice cooker" to equal "hipster Instant Pot". Thus we know that they are the same value. You are only doing a test. We don't know for sure if your conditional returns true.
Sorry, yeah, I got them mixed up in my head when I was typing it out - I think you understood what I meant, thanks for correcting.
My comment got downvoted, but come on, the Instant Pot _is_ just the hipster version of the old rice cooker ... and the rice cooker is a really important but simple modern invention.
Plastic. We're now drowning in a new problem, but plastic and its impact on sanitation (particularly medical sanitation, like disposable needles, which then supports vaccinations) has dramatically improved life quality and length.
Losing a child to disease before the age of five is no longer a universal human experience, portrayed in the Robert Frost poem below.
Wood pulp paper, dimensional lumber (and related framing methods), and I see someone already mentioned the AM radio.
The manipulation of the aether thoroughly meets your definition of modernity, and the principles of constructing a simple radio aren't terribly complicated.
The compound bow was not invented until 1966, but any technically-inclined person from the early-modern era would immediately understand how it works from a picture.
Tangential, but if you want to nerd out on bow tech, the slingshot channel is awesome! Rapid fire repeating bows with half draw-weight, all made in the classic mad inventor in a garage charm!
It is definitely more ecological and practical, without any chemicals or fragrance that are found in tampons / pads these days.
I definitely see it as a more affordable (the initial cost is higher, but think long-run) solution.
The bicycle is only debatably simple, considering that it's the culmination of quite a few relatively-advanced technologies and processes: steelmaking, pneumatic tires, interchangeable parts, ball bearings, bowden cables, etc.
Yes. So long as we had a few reference works, freedom from attack by competing tribes, and landed on productive agricultural land.
Simple radios are very easy and allow us to stick together over wider ranges than the locals, knowledge of simple medical concepts and sanitation keeps us alive and healthy longer.
Understanding how to build effective shelters and storage systems allows us to keep an agricultural surplus which enables some of us to devote our time to bootstrapping.
The biggest problem would be people jockeying for short term power instead of pulling together for long term success.
The thing you are missing, which is a massive hurdle that is underappreciated, is that you need access to raw materials. Most of the modern gadgets we use require things that you can't just find out your front door.
That's why it takes a hundred years. You first have to create the infrastructure that allows you to free up people to prospect and mine. However if we concentrate on energy first then most of the materials one needs to get started are indeed just outside one's front door. All you need for an electronics industry is glass and metal. We can use valves until we have a supply of indium, etc.
This book is an attempt at answering that question, although it's not exactly step-by-step (especially as the book progresses), it gives the framework for rebooting civilization - the paths to follow.
[edit] - actually it's answering a slightly different question I guess - how to reboot after a cataclysm, but the path is more-or-less the same I think :)
12 years ago we still relayed on notebooks and pens for everything. Then smartphones appear and life changed forever. And also devices like clocks, calculators, cameras, gps, planners, maps, agendas, erasers and liquid paper become redundant.
They can cause you to become reliant on sleeping with earplugs.
Our hearing system does not turn off at night, and by using earplugs you may be increasing your night time hearing sensitivity.
I worked for almost 15 years in Audiology and saw many people with issues in part from sleeping with ear plugs.
Most could not sleep without earplugs even in very quiet situations, and some even developed hyperacusis.
For the prevention of hearing-loss due to noise, they have been excellent.
Try a white noise generator. I live with noisy roommates and it has changed my life. Ear plugs fall out, and can prevent you from hearing real emergencies and your alarm clock.
I went from borderline psychotic from them waking me up, to sleeping like a rock.
I would imagine that the improvement to sleep quality outweighs any possible ear bacteria problems, at least in otherwise healthy people sleeping in noisy locations.
I also question the “quadruple” claim, a quick internet search doesn’t back that up.
I mean, it only takes a glance through Kenny's history of philosophy books to see that as a concept, it's not a very modern idea.
It's just that it's only in the 1800s and 1900s that general strikes forced the idea to actually be implemented. Before industrial work, if you stopped working the land you could be replaced (Strikes did still happen, but they were easier to deal with). The introduction of industrial work makes strikes harder to deal with, because instead of having to come up with 10 or 20 men for the fields, or exerting your force over them, you have to come up with a couple of hundred or a couple of thousand men to work the factory, or find a way to exert force over them. And while the labour is 'unskilled', you still need a certain level of understanding about, say, making steel, to avoid killing yourself and to properly manufacture the materials.
And then in the 20th century, globalisation -- or more accurately -- the resulting specialisation of facilities, made striking even more effective. To quote Tony Cliff:
When 3,000 General Motors brake parts workers went on strike in
Dayton, Ohio, in 1996, they shut down General Motors operations across
the United States, Canada and Mexico. Over 125,000 General Motors
workers were laid off within days. The strike cost the company around
$45 million a day, and the Clinton government screamed at both sides
to settle.
When an almost general strike took place in Denmark, Saab was forced
to stop car production in Sweden because it ran out of essential
components from Danish suppliers. The assembly of Saab’s convertible
motors in Finland was also forced to stop. Volvo also announced that
its production lines in Sweden and the Netherlands had been very badly
affected.
In 1988, when Ford workers in Britain struck, they brought the whole
of Ford Europe to a halt within three or four days.
As I mentioned in another comment, the things that we take for granted: the ability for working men to vote (Something won by the Chartists in the 1800s), the ability for women to vote, human rights laws, worker's rights laws, the NHS, etc. were all given to us by strikes.
This. The ability for investors to fund risky business ventures without being personally liable for the debts of the venture is what enabled the industrial revolution and led to most of the other inventions on this list.
Number two is casualty and other types of insurance.
I love that fiber optics are really rather complex in the underlying theory, but they're so simple in construction (ok it can take some very complex machinery, but when it boils down to it you could easily make a functional, basic example yourself, useful for real purposes, say piping in sunlight to a room)
Howard Hughes Sr's tricone rock bit truly revolutionized the world, and made the oil and gas industry possible. It's success was staggering: only a few years after he dropped dead of a heart attack, his son Howard, Jr (the one you usually think of) took over the company and was personally making over a million dollars a day - In the depths of the Depression!
Basic hygiene. Washing hands and yourself with hot water and soap. Not exchanging needles. Covering your mouth before sneezing. Tampons / pads, toilet tissue (although I prefer a faucet and doing a first pass with water. More hygienic and less tissue used. Also much better for the bottom)
Vaccines, anti-biopics and good hygiene and sanitary practices have doubled our average life span.
With a long life we’ve been able to achieve a lot more. Women have been more productive, we’ve created more wealth, have fewer children so each child has more resources and opportunities.
The state of US healthcare really makes me sad, but I’m hopeful we’ll keep on learning more about the human body and engineer more ways of fixing it and making us all live a longer, healthier, wealthier, happier life.
Pencils are not a modern invention [0], which is why it doesn't fit the question. The ballpoint pen, as an example, is a 19th century patent [1], so pens in general might fit.
idk...as far as complexity goes, plastics are not really all that bad. i'd argue that many machines are far more complex than a polymer when you consider what it's comprised of and how it functions.
It's not the inventions that are most important but the thinking processes and curiosity that continue to investigate, tinker, design, and test new ideas and processes. Humans are problem solvers by nature and by survival instinct. Every invention is a product of the mind.
