No it's not, a major technological advancement was a machine that sews for you, there is very little hand sewing done any more. The second perhaps more important technological tour de force were the weaving machines, there is even less hand weaving than there is hand sewing.
The problem with the term "hand-made" is how vague it is, you would not a call a car "hand made" even though most of the parts are put together by hand.
Personally I think the sewing machine was a trickier problem than the weaving machine, We take them for granted today but it took 100 years and a real stroke of genius to figure out how to invert the process in order to make it simple enough for a machine to do it. while weaving has always utilized complex machines to make it possible.
Like your parent, I would consider that cars are, in the same sense, "hand made" both including the small runs of luxury cars (which are "hand made" in the sense where parts might not fit properly because the panel was made by Steve on Monday morning, and he got the measurements a bit wrong) and a generic mid-range SUV that Ford churned out in huge numbers where a "production line" still has humans working on every vehicle, even though they have machines to help them do a consistent job.
We should distinguish two kinds of weaving machine, fortunately my sister is a textile artist so I have to hand exactly the best examples. A few minutes walk from her home is Saltaire, which today is a tourist attraction but was historically economically important. Titus Salt's mill, for which the village provides housing and so on, had the second kind of weaving machine. The Mill produced fabric much like you'd see today, yards and yards of identical material woven at incredible speed.
But for centuries before such mills were built, the first kind of weaving machine had existed. You won't see many in use today, some kinds of University might show them to students, a few museums have one that can be demonstrated. But on the Outer Hebrides there are lots, and that's because Harris Tweed is specifically required to be made this way, on those islands, the same way Champagne has to be made in a specific way in a particular region of France.
It is in principle possible for humans to literally weave fabrics by hand, but it's ridiculously laborious, so the first machine (the one used to make Harris Tweed) makes a lot of sense. But if we're going to (and ordinarily people do) insist this counts as Hand Weaving then it seems also reasonable to say that operating a sewing machine to make a pair of jeans is also hand making clothes.
Fabric stretches. That makes it very hard to accurately handle. A size 6 dress needs to be the same size and fit as every other size 6 dress from your brand since if someone likes one they might buy more. (there is no need to be the same as someone else's size 6, but it needs to match your other size 6s)
Right, it’s like if paper was really stretchy and had tissue-paper like qualities of wanting to bunch up and fold, and you tried to make a printer. We all know how much of a struggle it can be to get paper to consistently feed without it being stretchy or wanting to bunch up…
But then also you need to make origami with it, not just print.
To some degree, paper does have those characteristics --- when one is folding it for binding, which is why books printed in signatures are more expensive, and actual sewn signatures even more so.
The interesting question is whether the West is succesful because of or inspite of our Christian base. There's no denying the place of Christianity in European history, but that doesn't mean that the good things about our societies are due to Christianity. Christianity has changed a lot since Roman times, and its place and expression in various societies have been affected by other ideological currents and reinterpretations.
I'm Danish, which while nominally Christian has been a fairly irreligious country for a few generations now, and it certainly seems to me that the less influence and visibility Christianity has had, the better off we've been. Most of the things that make this country a good place to live come from socialism/social democracy and feminism, whereas many strands of Christianity has mostly been a reactionary force (with some exceptions).
Christians and Christian apologists like to pretend that Christianity led to social progress, when at every turn, the church had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world, and only then claimed the progress as their own.
English is not my native language - could you help me understand where I gave the impression that Christianity made no contributions to the development of the west?
> There's no denying the place of Christianity in European history, but that doesn't mean that the good things about our societies are due to Christianity.
Well, the elimination of slavery, and development of human rights (every human is a 'child of God', whether king or peasant). Which is tied in with the concept of individualism:
The modern idea of science needed certain metaphysical assumptions that weren't really present in many other religions (and to the extent they were present in philosophy, aspects of said philosophy(s) were often mainstreamed by Christianity (e.g., Aristotle)):
And where "science" (or what passed for it at the time) existed elsewhere, it often withered or was snuffed out; the invention of the telescope was transformational in Europe, but not so much in Muslim lands, Mughal India, or Imperial China:
Various legal forms were promulgated by the Church (including that the authorities themselves were not (notionally) above the law: not something you'll find with (e.g.) the Chinese Emperor), as were universities:
And if they were not due to Christianity, I'd say [citation needed] on how they developed otherwise. And more than developed, but became 'mainstream' thinking in many parts of the globe (though certainly not universally, as Chinese Uyghurs are experiencing).
> the elimination of slavery, and development of human rights (every human is a 'child of God', whether king or peasant)
I can understand that slavery goes against the 'child of God' philosophy, but there seems to be very little (none?) explicit condemnation of slavery in the bible and certainly there's been organised Christian religions for centuries before slavery was abolished.
To my mind, Christianity seems incidental to the abolition of slavery as it's only been relatively recently (18th century) that Christians condemned slavery rather than just wanting slaves to be treated well (and that they had to obey their masters).
> I can understand that slavery goes against the 'child of God' philosophy, but there seems to be very little (none?) explicit condemnation of slavery in the bible and certainly there's been organised Christian religions for centuries before slavery was abolished.
Galatian 3 would be the key statement:
> 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. 27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring,[k] heirs according to the promise.
Slavery was often view as a 'natural evil' like famine or pestilence, of which we just had to live with, but it was never viewed as good; Basil of Caesarea (330-379 AD) for one took this view. His (biological) brother Gregory of Nyssa took the view that slavery was inherently sinful:
> If [man] is in the likeness of God, ... who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller? To God alone belongs this power; or rather, not even to God himself. [...] God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery, since [God] himself, when we had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom. But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God's?
So right from very early times there was a strong anti-slavery leaning and desire in Christianity. The above referenced book Inventing the Individual goes through the history of constantly increasing individual freedom starting in the late-Roman period:
> His thesis is simple: the origin of secular liberalism, - conceived of as the intellectual current and attitude that puts the individual at the centre, as a unique acting object and as fundamentally equal to other individuals -, its origins don’t lie in the Renaissance or the Enlightenment, but much earlier, in medieval Christianity. "Secularism is Christianity's greatest gift to the world", he states. Christianity, through Paul and Augustine, put the freedom and equality of the acting man first, in contrast to ancient Antiquity, where inequality determined the character of society and each individual found its place in a certain, natural hierarchy. It took centuries for Christian intellectuals to focus on freedom and equality in their thinking and to make it a natural starting point for people and society. The major breakthrough took place between the 12th and 14th century, in the high Middle Ages. That is the central thesis of this book.
I'm not convinced that the Galatian 3 quote shows a strong anti-slavery sentiment - I interpret it as equating slave/free with male/female i.e. a natural state that people are in (similarly, the Jew/Greek dichotomy).
Gregory of Nyssa shows a strong anti-slavery view which is commendable, but I feel that he was ignored by a lot of Christians (it's the first time that I've heard of his name, but then I'm an atheist).
But if these things are because of Christianity, and it is often implied that western modernity is present in it from its beginning, almost an unavoidable consequent of it... then why are they not universal in Christendom? Why can I point to just as many Christian movements who are anti-science, pro-slavery, anti-individual?
> Why can I point to just as many Christian movements who are anti-science, pro-slavery, anti-individual?
Because people have free will,† and can choose to accept or ignore orthodox teaching.
This is especially true after Protestantism came about which caused a splintering into (tens of?) thousands of denominations,[1] rejecting even some tenets that were present since the beginning of Christianity (e.g., the Real Presence).
Whereas if you look at Catholicism (and Orthodox churches), they generally have consistent teachings going back to their beginning.
† Which of course some Christian denominations (and some modern materialists like Sapolsky) deny.
I just don't see how it holds water at all to say that Christianity was what caused the abolition of slavery, when just as many Christians were in favour of it.
I wonder what this will cost to build and how often they break. I doubt it's going to be able to compete with the price of human labour anytime soon. So it's either for going places people can't go (rescue bot?), or doing things people really don't want to do, like walk towards gunfire.
That's like saying companies you worked for couldn't exist without indoor plumbing (which is what OSS effectively is). Yet the earliest company was founded in the year 578 AD, and other massive organizations (like empires) existed much earlier than that. OSS is plumbing, cheaper plumbing makes for more tiny fruit-fly companies, yes, but there are always alternatives.
Thing is: changing the colours _could_ be improving the UX.
Eg I'm colourblind, and a careful revision of a colourscheme can make my life easier. (Though I would suggest also using other attributes to differentiate like size, placement, texture, saturation, brightness etc.)
It's not more complicated if you know the language.
Language is a tool. People will use their language for what they need it for. If there isn't a word they'll make one up or steal it. This is absolutely universal. I know you can dig up any number of texts that say English is special, but they're all wrong.
"Languages differ not in what they can express, but in what they must express" as Roman Jakobson phrased it. (The "must express" refers to grammar - in some languages you need a subject, or to know the time something happened, or in which direction[0] it happened. Other languages don't care, but you can add that information if you need it.)
[0] E.g. Mam, spoken in Guatemala, marks all verbs for direction, even if they're abstract, then you add one based on convention or metaphor or maybe taste.
It's funny; I'm looking at your examples and coming to the opposite conclusion. I feel like it is very good because it provides explanations for unusual or novel words that are similar to what a human might conclude.
Would you expect that it would point out that "refuggle" is not a word with any documented usage rather than drawing a strenuous connection to a slightly similar word?
I find the connections it draws amusing. Since I'm not the inventor of the word "refuggle," I can't say that I know its etymology or how it relates to "refugee." But I guess this is one weakness of LLMs: they're bad at admitting they don't have an answer.
We know alot about how English has evolved. Word forms develop along certain paths, sound changes follow laws that linguists have described, and the "fuuuug" in refugee does not become "fugg".
Etymology is probably the subfield of the humanities that provides the closest thing we get to testable hypotheses and laws. This is just mashing shit together.
It also seems to have a tendency to just mash semantics together. As though having something resembling "pig" and something resembling "full" means "full AND piggish". But that's not how plain juxtaposition works in Germanic: it's specification, not conjunction. So "pigful" would mean a type of full, full of pigs. (This is language specific, by the way; as I recall in Vietnamese "mother-father" is the normal word for parents - but in Danish it means grandfather, your mother's father.)
I'm sure I could get WhateverGPT to hallucinate something that looks like those drawings chemists make of molecules to most laypeople. That would be about as interesting as this is.
Thinking about that picture from a (UK?) hospital breakroom with the sign that said "Please turn off the Echo before discussing sensitive patient information."
I will never have anything voice controlled in my house if I can help it. I mean I have them but they're all turned off. Except for the teenager's iphone, but we troll him by saying stuff like "Hey Siri, how do I stop being annoying?" or something like that.
I am fully in favor of team "I'm never sending my voice anywhere", but assuming a locally-hosted voice control I'll say: voice is a great interface around the house.
If I'm preparing to leave and wonder whether I should bring a jacket, yelling "what's the weather like?" is much more convenient than taking out my phone (or go pick it up from the other room), unlock it, go to the home screen, open the weather app, wait 2-3 seconds and then scroll to the full forecast.
I'm not saying that checking my phone is an annoyance - it's still much better than checking the newspaper. But being able to keep my uninterrupted focus in what I'm doing is the type of luxury one only notices once it's gone.
I've never liked any answer I've gotten to questions like "what's the weather like."
I look at the forecast in my weather app -- the whole fullscreen thing -- and follow some sort of mental algorithm that I can't fully specify to arrive at the conclusion about what to wear/bring. The spoken data feels like it's missing something, or maybe it's just transmitted in a sequence that my brain can't work with.
It's not that I don't trust it, exactly. It's that I can't use it for the task I'm trying to do. Never could. I have this problem with a lot of voice interfaces, and it suggests to me that either a) they're not very good, or b) my brain is not designed for that kind of UX.
It's certainly gives a very different kind of answer than my roommate would. Often times the most useful answer to receive can be "exactly like yesterday" or "slightly warmer/colder" - a voice assistant wouldn't do that.
