This video discusses the history and principles of classical analog computing and then says that analog computers have energy efficiency benefits over digital computers. This can give the incorrect impression that classical analog computers are more efficient than digital computers, which is absolutely not correct. It may be true that modern analog phase-change memory AI accelerators are more efficient than their digital counterparts, but this assertion should be distanced from the discussion of classical analog computers to not give the wrong impression.
People always love to say some old lost tech is better than the modern version
But it's like, a one in a thousand shot.Almost all modern tech is better with regressions lasting a decade at most.
Occasionally there are rumors of some modern medical treatments being worse even though medicine as a whole improves, but mechanical and electrical stuff is much better understood and more controlled.
The exception is a few specific appliances that are seemingly designed to fail. Even then there's no lost tech. I'm pretty confident we could make a much better washing machine today for much less money if we tried, than anything from 30 or 50 years ago.
The ancient tech myth I see the most is the idea that the recipe for "Roman concrete" was lost, and somehow modern engineers can't figure out how to make a superior mix.
Certainly, Roman engineers built incredible unreinforced concrete structures. But this was accomplished through structural engineering techniques designed to keep the concrete compressed (e.g. arches, domes). Modern structures like elevated highways and skyscrapers would be impossible to build this way, and require steel reinforcement.
While the mix the Romans used was slightly different (apparently it contained a bit of volcanic ash and used less water), modern engineers deliberately choose a different mix based on the structure. E.g. larger structures with natural reinformcement, like dams, will tend to use a mix closer to what the Romans used.
The analog computers on the Missouri class battleships was never upgraded because the kill radius of the shells was larger than the margin of error the analog computers introduced and that the analog computers required less electricity which is good for something such as a ship. So in this way, yes, they are better (these computers developed in the 30s). It depends on the application.
> Occasionally there are rumors of some modern medical treatments being worse even though medicine as a whole improves, but mechanical and electrical stuff is much better understood and more controlled.
Such as the iron lung probably being better than the invasive machines we have today.
> The exception is a few specific appliances that are seemingly designed to fail. Even then there's no lost tech. I'm pretty confident we could make a much better washing machine today for much less money if we tried, than anything from 30 or 50 years ago.
look at the space industry, it actually costs us more (adjusting for inflation) to try and go back to the moon than when we did before when we had no idea on how to do it.
Or look at tractors, farmers are clamoring for 1980s tractors over these new expensive (break down easy with no way to repair) 'modern' tractors John Deer is pushing.
People died going to the moon the first time. Better to not go at all, or to have it cost 10x as much, than to risk even one astronaut's life.
Besides, if we just redid what we had, we would not be developing any new tech that could be used on earth. And it would be less comfortable, a very bad thing if you're still fighting the losing battle to convince anyone that they'd like to be in space for more that a brief adventure.
AFAIK they have cuirass ventilation to replace iron lungs now.
Those new tractors are most likely way more reliable. In practice they may be worse because of artificial limitations put there on purpose, but were it not for those it would almost certainly be better(Although people would probably still like the same ones, because no matter how reliable something is, people seem to like things with a "substantial" feel that they can understand).
All the commentary I see about the moon program says that the rockets bit of NASA was set up to be a pork barrel for all of Congress just so nobody cancelled the Apollo mission, and that the many people are annoyed that this structure is still in place.
Given that, the cost of the latest moon mission is “as much as we can squeeze the taxpayer for” rather than representative of the actual cost. The various new startups worldwide (not just SpaceX) are all much more interesting, though obviously they’ll only get a price comparison when they actually land a human.
It depends of your criteria. E.G: old appliance are bulky, noisier and suck more juice. You could say modern ones are then better. But my mother still own stuff from decades ago, that are consistently sturdier, last longer, are easier to repair, and have a better UI.
I just bought a food slicer. The motor was connected to the saw using a very soft plastic gear. Its teeth became smooth after a month of use, rendering the machine useless, and no way to buy a new gear on the internet.
This is modern tech at work: you getter a cheaper machine, but to get there, the materials used suck. And there is no stock for replacement parts because it's expensive to keep them around.
They're probably deep in planned obsolescence since most people will use them about 3 times in 30 years.
The more common everyday things like kettles, vacuum cleaners, toasters, etc all seem to have very good options for not much money.
I've never driven a car, but my family seems to need less trips to the mechanics by far than when I was a kid. Computers definitely seem better in every way, and of course all small electronics like tape players have been phone-ified and seem to be much more reliable.
It may well be that slicers are niche enough that consumer versions are worse.
Still, nylon gears can be very durable(Unless any ozone gets on them, that seems to kill them).
A truly modern slicer with the same crappy materials would probably be using the MCU to predict the gear temperature based on motor current and limiting the duty cycle, and it would last a long time and perform acceptably well.
Either that or they'd have some direct drive scheme for then really nice ones, or maybe even some kind of no moving parts linear motor.
Modern power tools do this all the time. They shut down or reduce power for what seems to be no reason or a minor reason, but the computer probably detected some subtle overload condition I wouldn't have. It's a bit annoying, but it makes them cheap and durable enough to not think twice about buying used.
The stuff at Wal-Mart usually sucks, but there's almost always some affordable modern version that beats the older tech.
It does seem that 3rd party gears exist though, for some slicers.
Modern refrigerators and washing appliance can be really flaky from software bugs. I've talk to others who have $3000 fancy stainless steel refrigerators and they seem vulnerable to weird and hard to diagnose problems.
