Bell Labs invested in research that would bring payoff 20+ years in the future. That's in part because they were a quasi-monopoly. (Also because there was less pressure back then on execs to focus on short-term stock prices.)
It's also because Bell Labs ran a lot on government contracts and grants. The government CAN look 20+ years in the future. And it does.
You can see the same effect in pharma today. Pharma R&D develops drugs that will hit the clinic in the next 5-10 years at most. The true basic research of identifying targets and understanding cancer/Alzheimer's mechanisms to launch future drugs -- that's all funded by the government.
I would also ask how we could recreate another exemplar in that space, DARPA. Now of course DARPA is alive and kicking, but what about another DARPA, say in Europe?
The two organizations did have different missions, with DARPA being mostly an investor while Bell Labs was mostly a practitioner.
The question that springs to mind is, why did Bell Labs decay while DARPA did not?
Today, we’re just talking about a problem. That problem is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is currently short a commissioner, and the Biden administration and Senate Democrats just can’t seem to get that seat filled despite having nominated an amazingly qualified person. Her name is Gigi Sohn. The inability to get Gigi confirmed at the FCC has left the commission deadlocked with two Democrats and two Republicans. That means the commission in charge of regulating all telecom in the United States, including how you get your internet service, is unable to get much done. And the Biden administration can’t accomplish some of its biggest policy priorities, like expanding rural broadband and restoring net neutrality.
The maximum total is not the realistic maximum that she would get if tried. Criminal offense category, concurrent sentences, and criminal history all need to be taken into account.
Yes. Abrams presided over the plea on Dec 19. Now Kaplan has the case.
Abrams' husband works at Davis Polk, but Davis Polk (firm w/ ~1000 attorneys) has represented FTX in the past. It's pretty typical for these sorts of conflicts to arise, and in this case it's probably best to remove any sniff of a perceived conflict by Abrams stepping aside. Nothing here is going to be controversial -- though our federal courts are currently going through serious turmoil due to events of last few years, albeit not really SDNY and the 2nd Circuit is mostly normal too.
Duopoly. Plus cost of switching away once you sign up.
Network effects and monopolistic (anti-competitive) features allow bad companies to survive today. Monopolistic practices are probably a worse problem today than in the 1920s.
In the 1920s governments used regulation to break up huge firms and defeat advantages due to cost of capital (hard to start a new railroad in the 20s because the cost of trains and tracks was just so high.) Today, cost of capital is relatively less important, and things like switching cost and bundling and people valuing their time and convenience are bigger factors. We need anti-trust/government regulation to address those.
(For example, in the case of password managers, imagine if there were laws requiring publicized security audits and seamless migration to a new service of customer's choice. A competitor to Lastpass might have arrived by now.
All major browsers offer password management, then there's Apple Keychain, 1Password, KeePass, Bitwarden, and Lastpass. And that's just the ones I could think about while reading your comment.
Where is the the duopoly, and who's being forced out of the marketplace due to lack of government regulation of password managers?
Much of this could be addressed by antitrust enforcement as well as actually having competent lawmakers that understand the products their citizens use overwhelmingly daily. Policymakers barely understand the internet, let alone zero knowledge architecture and encryption
Sundar Pichai being asked about if someone is handpicking search results comes to mind, as an illustration
the improvements have come in confinement and fuel
if this approach works, you'll see laser innovation over time to improve energy per shot. You'll also see engineering to contain the released neutrons so everything in there doesn't get made radioactive.
Long ran on a 300 baud modem (I think it was one bit per transition!.) Upgraded to a 2400 baud Hayes smartmodem full-duplex (V22bis!) and eventually a 14.4k Zyxel running some strange proprietary protocol with asymmetric channels. If I remember correctly, it's been a long long time.
Did anyone else's sister intentionally pick up other phone lines regularly to ditch the modem transfers so she could talk on the phone?
The context of when and why (and to who) asbestos causes cancer is simply ignored.
Asbestos causes a very, very nasty cancer - mesothelioma - that causes almost certain death. Painful death. With a very bad prognosis. And mesothelioma is caused mainly by asbestos.
There's a reason why we purged asbestos. No one wants to get mesothelioma.
The main risk factor for pleural mesothelioma is exposure to asbestos. In fact, most cases of pleural mesothelioma have been linked to high levels of asbestos exposure, usually in the workplace.
Note that talc is a mineral crystal/fiber a little like asbestos, and talc is connected to ovarian/uterine cancer. Let's not play around with dusty tiny pieces of rock, they seem to be bad for our bodies.
Author here, the point of the piece isn't the asbestos. It's that we literally (in the original sense of the word) forgot the asbestos; asbestos was used as a part of the first stage F-1 engine's thermal protection system for the famous Saturn V rocket.
As the insulation was applied at the very last step, there aren't many photos of the final product. Add the presence of the cancer-causing asbestos, none of the existing displays and museum pieces show this vital component.
Because the museums don't reflect this fact, it doesn't exist in popular culture. And because it doesn't exist in popular culture, and that the people who built the Saturn V are dying off, we are largely in the process of forgetting what the most famous machine of the 20th century looked like.
The point of the piece is the forgetting. Not the asbestos.
This has my curious. I could have sworn every space museum I went to made a point about the asbestos coating. Just an odd fake memory of mine? (Sincere question, btw. I have more synthetic memories than I'd care to admit.)
Here's a report for the command module, which starts with a very funny quote, "The JSC Director waived the use of the International System of Units (SI)for this Apollo Experience Report because, in his judgment, the use of SI units would impair the usefulness of the report or result in excessive cost." https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19740007423/downloads/19...
Asbestos was used pretty much everywhere you wanted to contain heat. I recall watching videos of people with a fabric of it on their hands and a butane torch aimed at it, to show how effective it was. Usually in lectures that were explaining why it was used in applications like jets/rockets. :D
I am probably closer to one of the "mini-cult of adherents who worship it with near-religious fervor" than I'd like to admit, but I make a kind of pilgrimage to sit under and stare at the F1 engine at my local museum every now and then. It's very much wormed into my consciousness _without_ any asbestos or foil wrapping:
(Not my pic, just one I found on DDG that fits with my memory of it)
As a cultist, I recall a similar story to the Fogbank one about the fuel pumps for thoe F-1 motors. Apparently in spite of having all the docs, we still needed to reverse engineer them from museum pieces to find out how to build new ones:
Why was NASA working with ancient engines instead of building a new F-1 or a full Saturn V? One urban legend holds that key "plans" or "blueprints" were disposed of long ago through carelessness or bureaucratic oversight. Nothing could be further from the truth; every scrap of documentation produced during Project Apollo, including the design documents for the Saturn V and the F-1 engines, remains on file. If re-creating the F-1 engine were simply a matter of cribbing from some 1960s blueprints, NASA would have already done so.
A typical design document for something like the F-1, though, was produced under intense deadline pressure and lacked even the barest forms of computerized design aids. Such a document simply cannot tell the entire story of the hardware. Each F-1 engine was uniquely built by hand, and each has its own undocumented quirks. In addition, the design process used in the 1960s was necessarily iterative: engineers would design a component, fabricate it, test it, and see how it performed. Then they would modify the design, build the new version, and test it again. This would continue until the design was "good enough."
Further, although the principles behind the F-1 are well known, some aspects of its operation simply weren't fully understood at the time. The thrust instability problem is a perfect example. As the F-1 was being built, early examples tended to explode on the test stand. Repeated testing revealed that the problem was caused by the burning plume of propellent rotating as it combusted in the nozzle. These rotations would increase in speed until they were happening thousands of times per second, causing violent oscillations in the thrust that eventually blew the engine apart. The problem could have derailed the Saturn program and jeopardized President Kennedy's Moon landing deadline, but engineers eventually used a set of stubby barriers (baffles) sticking up from the big hole-riddled plate that sprayed fuel and liquid oxygen into the combustion chamber (the "injector plate"). These baffles damped down the oscillation to acceptable levels, but no one knew if the exact layout was optimal.
I mean... I know that the rockets that are on display don't have asbestos. That isn't my assertion. My assertion is that I could have sworn plaques and whatnot mention it.
Now... most of my memory for rockets is from when I did space camp way back in the mid 90s. So... Yeah, I don't have picture perfect memory of that.
This just feels like when I'm told that CS majors don't learn about the involvement of women in computer science. By and large, that is not totally accurate. It is accurate enough for the point, which is that there is sexism. But, as the software person in the room that went to college, I was almost guaranteed to be the only one that knew the names of the women that our education supposedly skipped on.
Given that’s the case, you didn’t need to include Asbestos in the title of the article to garner more clicks, as I’m sure you must have realised it would have done.
It's tongue in cheek. I write for myself and to reach out to/engage in dialog with interesting people. And to just add to the general sphere of human knowledge.
I wrote this because I couldn't find anyone else addressing it.
Forgetting the Thermal Protection System (that included inconel and asbestos) is a lot harder to read than Forgetting the Asbestos.
And I didn't think it would be a problem. Usually on HN, people read the article before commenting.
I understand your point and that of the person you're replying to, but I have two points:
1) I read your comment before the article
2) Despite feeling pretty familiar with the subject matter, I don't think I know what inconel is
It was you comment that led me to commit to reading the article, because I'm not interested in yet another article about asbestos but I am interested in the Thermal Protection System.
With respect, I was pointing out that the word asbestos has certain gravity that would have attracted clicks.
To suggest I didn’t read the article is in bad faith. I did read it, and quite liked it as it happens (I had no idea of the extra heat shields over the engines and how that detail had been lost to time). It just could’ve done without the clickbait title is all.
A close relative worked for a company that made asbestos cement products in the day.
The factory contained an automated production line, about 100m long. The first step was a room into which the raw asbestos fibre was blown. From there it went into the main machine. The door to the room had a glass window, through which the "snow storm" inside could be seen.
One of the old hands in the factory related a story whereby new people would be locked in the room and their mates would crowd around the window to watch the snowman show.
A lot of the people I knew from that company died from mesothelioma, including the person who told me that story. (My relative was not one of them.)
The upper echelons of the company knew the true risk (as it emerged later) but it was downplayed, within the company. Most of the workers truly believed that the risk wasn't that great.
Have you read the Wizard of Oz books? Radium is presented there as a cross between a magical source of power (more or less correct, in hindsight) and a medical panacea (nope). This also occurs in old Conan the Barbarian stories.
Read old stories, and you can't help bumping into some very different worldviews.
Bell Labs invested in research that would bring payoff 20+ years in the future. That's in part because they were a quasi-monopoly. (Also because there was less pressure back then on execs to focus on short-term stock prices.)
It's also because Bell Labs ran a lot on government contracts and grants. The government CAN look 20+ years in the future. And it does.
You can see the same effect in pharma today. Pharma R&D develops drugs that will hit the clinic in the next 5-10 years at most. The true basic research of identifying targets and understanding cancer/Alzheimer's mechanisms to launch future drugs -- that's all funded by the government.