I have heard it said that the word "technology" shares its roots with the word "textiles". Maybe it's not so surprising that there would be a shared interest as well!
> Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to weave," also "to fabricate," especially with an ax, also "to make wicker or wattle fabric for (mud-covered) house walls."
> It might form all or part of: architect; context; dachshund; polytechnic; pretext; subtle; technical; techno-; technology; tectonic; tete; text; textile; tiller (n.1) "bar to turn the rudder of a boat;" tissue; toil (n.2) "net, snare."
> It might also be the source of: Sanskrit taksati "he fashions, constructs," taksan "carpenter;" Avestan taša "ax, hatchet," thwaxš- "be busy;" Old Persian taxš- "be active;" Latin texere "to weave, fabricate," tela "web, net, warp of a fabric;" Greek tekton "carpenter," tekhnē "art;" Old Church Slavonic tesla "ax, hatchet;" ...
According to William Dalrymple, India was once responsible for a third of the world's GDP, with the most advanced textile industry in the world before the East India Company dismantled it.
As a note, Sanskrit is a "sibling" or cousin of Latin or Greek in the family tree of languages ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/IndoEuro... ). Neither Latin nor Greek grew from Sanskrit but rather each (and many other languages) grew from Proto-Indo-European that was believed to exist somewhere in 4500 to 2500 BC.
As a novice in the history of languages and being k-lingual in a couple of Indian languages and English, the Farsi language is such a delightful stream of discoveries.
Regardless of which k of my languages I restrict myself to, I end up discovering words that are same between Farsi and that language.
I understand that this should not be surprising given their roots in Indo-Iranian languages, the largest branches of Indo-European.
Nonetheless it is delightful everytime I discover a new one by accident.
Basile Bouchon developed the control of a loom by punched holes in paper tape in 1725. The design was improved by his assistant Jean-Baptiste Falcon and by Jacques Vaucanson.[5] Although these improvements controlled the patterns woven, they still required an assistant to operate the mechanism.
In 1804 Joseph Marie Jacquard demonstrated a mechanism to automate loom operation. A number of punched cards were linked into a chain of any length. Each card held the instructions for shedding (raising and lowering the warp) and selecting the shuttle for a single pass.[6]
To help debug the occasional 'dropped all the cards on the floor' accident, was the diagonal stripe across the side, after the cards have been stacked right.
This was used for computers for sure, not sure about the Jacquard looms.
With complete freedom in addressing (raising) any subset of the warps, these looms were very expressive. My favorite are multi shaft looms.
In a k-shaft loom you can only define k elementary subsets of all the warps. Makes for more interesting problem solving instances and mathematical structure.
Maybe. Depends on how good the substitute is. Demand for number crunching went up as costs went down, but nobody is training human "computers" anymore.
I don’t know that those people were exactly out of a job though, they didn’t do that job, but I find it hard to believe that any of the people solving orbital mechanics by hand wound up with nothing to do but twiddle their thumbs for the remainder of their lives. Similarly, I don’t know that there’s any realistic prospect, even if ai winds up writing all the software, that there wont also be incentive to have people that also understand it.
They'd also be unhappy with a solar panel that only generated power when a car was plugged in. Fortunately it would still be connected to the grid, resolving both concerns.
To be fair, that could be said of many other medical conditions as well, especially chromosomal abnormalities such as Down Syndrome. Many humans, from the moment they are born and through no fault of their own, have virtually no hope of ever competing in the Olympics let alone winning, just because at such competitive extremes, any significant genetic disadvantage takes you out of the running.
It's by the team that did Horizon EDA, which is very much a "craftsmanship-first" effort. and they've been working on this for some time now. My guess is hardly any.
Is it a team really? Most commits seem to come from one user "carrotindustries". I am really interested in an Open Source CAD application with good UX, this one looks great. But I don't want to spend too much time on an application maintained mostly by a single developer. The risk of it being abandoned is too high.
I disagree. If you switch to the Part Design workbench, it's basically the exact same workflow as SolidWorks. Draw a sketch, add constraints, extrude / revolve / fillet, etc.
Yes they have some unconventional names for certain operations, like "pad" instead of "extrude", and yes there's a confusingly-similarly-named "Part" workbench for doing CSG-style CAD, and yes it takes a bit of practice to get good at it. But it's not next to impossible.
I think it's fair. I use FreeCAD a lot, and the word I would use last to describe the UI is "discoverable". Ignoring whether a workflow is possible - whether the functionality exists at all - there's a whole lot of it that you have to Just Know, or equally as often Just Know That It's Not Actually Broken. The very fact that you started your comment with "If you <do X thing that you have to be told to do>" is precisely part of that.
reply