The age-old “invention versus innovation” semantic tail chasing.
Some people think applying old concepts to new areas counts as invention, some don’t. Debating the point isn’t useful because there’s no objective truth to get to.
>Some people think applying old concepts to new areas counts as invention, some don’t. Debating the point isn’t useful because there’s no objective truth to get to.
This is most of philosophy :) arguing about the definitions of words especially in the edge cases. But it does matter, because how we quantify, reward, and protect "invention" matters, to do that you need an accurate definition, and boring folks to hash over what counts and what doesn't.
Around here people care a lot about patents and what should be patentable, and that really revolves around what is and isn't actual innovation, actual invention. Sometimes a thing is truly new and unique, other times it's a trivial obvious change, most of the time it's ambiguous and having precise language to determine which one and to what degree a thing is, can make all the difference.
Thanks? I’ve learned to check whether an assertion is clearly defined and falsifiable before engaging. Otherwise you get “obviously frobulation is better than defrobrulation”
I appreciate where you are coming from, but I'm not willing to say that there is no objective truth to it. Take the triode, for example, or the transistor. I include the latter because while it did something that functionally the triode could also do, it did it by exploiting different physics, and the difference was significant.
Sure, but my point is that for either of those, someone could mount a spirited argument in any of four directions (innovation / invention x yes / no) and it’s all just semantics.
We humans desperately want binary definitions, but things like this are gradients coupled to imperfect terms.
Some people think sustaining debates by splitting hairs indefinitely is productive, some don’t. Debating the point isn’t useful because there’s no objective truth to get to.
Yeah, but then some of us might mount a spirited argument along the third dimension - (honest / lying). In my experience, most of the "semantic arguments" you mention happen in context of someone wanting to sell you something (whether a product or a belief) - so while it's never binary, the borders get fuzzier the further you go towards "lying" on that third axis.
Some could argue that the transistor wasn’t an invention but a discovery: the physical behavior of the semiconductors has existed for millennia, and we discovered that behavior, but we had already invented vacuum tubes before which did the same thing, just a lot less efficiently. Notice that I said “invented” vacuum tubes because the behavior comes from careful engineering and manufacture which didn’t exist in the known universe before that.
But here too, arguing on invention vs discover is pointless because there’s no common truth…
From Wikipedia: "After the war, Shockley decided to attempt the building of a triode-like semiconductor device." If attempting (and succeeding) in using one's knowledge to produce a specific thing that does not currently exist is not invention, what is?
More generally, if there's no common truth then that itself cannot be a common truth...
> Notice that I said “invented” vacuum tubes because the behavior comes from careful engineering and manufacture which didn’t exist in the known universe before that.
That would mean an invention can become a discovery, potentially millennia later, if we discover (no pun intended) that the thing already existed in some form. I think few people would agree with that.
Also, the same ”discover or invent?” question is frequently asked about mathematics, where “exist in the known universe” is very much open for interpretation. Euclidean geometry ‘existed’ in the known universe for centuries, for example, until Einstein found out that it didn’t.
Then there's a different tail chase that's on the opposite side of "innovation" - whether doing the obvious thing others are doing, but achieving wider reach because of more funding, counts as innovation, or just popularization?
(To me personally, it's popularization, but in startup economy, it's pretty much the definition of "innovation".)
I disagree that in general it’s not useful to debate subjective matters.
What is being debated is not whether the given label applies, but whether the label should apply (which really means what the label means), which are subtly different things. The outcome of such a debate is an improved definition or at least an improved understanding of the sense in which others use the label.
I take it you don’t think it pointless to have an argument about whether or not something is ‘racist’, for example.
Ok, what changes based on which label should apply?
> I take it you don’t think it pointless to have an argument about whether or not something is ‘racist’, for example.
In the abstract, it probably is, unless the point of the argument is to determine whether to make meaningful change. "Are oranges racist?" - pointless. "Is this policy racist, in that it disproportionately affects X minority group?" - meaningful.
Say we all agree this is an example of innovation and not invention - now what? What was the outcome that warranted the argument at all?
Sometimes it's about the journey. Arguing/debating, even when there's no objective truth to the conclusion, can still teach you a lot about yourself and your opponent. How you think, where you have gaps.
Think of any political debate during an election. There's no truth. It's more for the audience.
McLaren has a loooong history of applying carbon fiber in new ways that revolutionize racing - the MP4/1 was the first full carbon monocoque chassis way back in 1981. Even though carbon fiber had previously been used in a limited fashion in other automotive and aerospace applications, most people credit McLaren for really bringing carbon fiber to the automotive world, because the MP4 series of racing cars were so dominant, everyone else copied them.
McLaren is also currently leading the F1 world championship (after one race) after having won the constructor's championship last year. So whatever they are doing merits understanding.
I believe the original point was that McLaren had an easier time winning the constructors because they had two drivers collecting points, while Red Bull — due to Checo not performing — only had one
Checo (Sergio Perez) was Max Verstappen's teammate at Red Bull. Red Bull had a dominant start to the season which set Verstappen up to win the driver's championship. Lando Norris at McLaren mounted a challenge to Verstappen as the McLaren car went from good to great at Miami, but couldn't pass Verstappen. He did, however, have a strong teammate in Oscar Piastri, and the two of them handily accumulated enough points for McLaren to beat Red Bull for the constructor's championship.
Which brings us back to Checo. There's a strong argument to be made that he, driving the dominant car for the first six races and probably second best car for the remainder of the season, should have been able to score enough points to keep McLaren from winning the constructor's championship. He did not and Red Bull cut him loose at the end of last season.
The second seat at Red Bull has been a brutal spot to be in since Verstappen came along. Arguably their car is very tailored to his preferences, and it's hard for another driver to get the most out of it, or even set it up to suit their preferences. Whatever the case, it's been a bit of a revolving door.
I'd second it. F1 racing is an interesting combination of sport, physics, aerospace engineering and manufacturing. But most of us don't have the background to fully enjoy what you've said without at least some background.
I mean judging from Liam Lawson I think the car isn't that well suited to most people other than Max.
And I remember Christian Horner said something to Zak Brown that seems to fuel fire inside him. And McLaren have been improving since then.
And back to the topic, I was rathe hoping this is some new tech we could reduce the weight of F1. It is still way too long and wide. Even accounting for the upcoming 2026 changes.
I wish we could go back to Pre 2009, sub 600kg much smaller F1 cars.
Carbon Fibre didn’t become mainstream until Pagani Composite Research was established in 1988. The person who brought carbon fibre to the masses was Horacio Pagani through his cooperation with Lamborghini. That’s where Horacio Pagani had the money from to focus on Pagani Automobili.
IMHO, it can because there can be significant challenges of implementing a given (manufacturing) process under completely different constraints. Like, air frames need to deal with a huge amount of weight and massive temperature swings (a flight from Qatar to Europe for example will start with +40 °C, and at travel height -60 °C), and F1 racing cars will instead encounter very frequent and very rapid acceleration/deceleration and up to 5G in dynamic forces.
It looks exactly how the aerospace automated fiber placement robot arms operated starting 10 years ago...but with a slightly smaller table. So they revolutionized the technology by slightly reducing the working volume!
It's still very cool to see the technology propagate to other industries though.
> it’s pioneering the use of an aerospace industry technique known as Automated Rapid Tape Carbon