[HN Gopher] IT Without Software
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       IT Without Software
        
       Author : hwayne
       Score  : 118 points
       Date   : 2021-07-01 16:36 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (ndt.instedd.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (ndt.instedd.org)
        
       | jrochkind1 wrote:
       | this is awesome!
        
       | tenebrisalietum wrote:
       | It's interesting that humanity can't settle on a single language,
       | but has managed to more or less standardize on the symbols for
       | numbers.
        
         | nicetryguy wrote:
         | Arabic notation / base ten seems to work really well with our
         | brains. Having that many fingers probably helps. I couldn't
         | imagine a modern world running on Roman Numerals.
        
           | maliker wrote:
           | The real killer application of arabic numerals is arithmetic.
           | Doing even multiplication and division in roman numerals is
           | very time consuming [1].
           | 
           | [1] https://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/08/16/roman-
           | numerals-...
        
           | laurent92 wrote:
           | > Having 10 fingers probably helps.
           | 
           | Yes, so we can count to 31 on one hand. Somehow, no
           | civilization invented a base-32 notation.
        
             | sipos wrote:
             | You might be able to. Personally I can't raise my ring
             | finger without my little/pinkie finger also being raised.
             | 
             | Also, some numbers in finger binary are liable to get you
             | punched if shown the wrong way round.
        
             | bobsmooth wrote:
             | A few civilizations have used base 60
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagesimal
        
               | bee_rider wrote:
               | The idea of counting to 12 by pointing to knuckles is
               | something I hadn't encountered before, and really neat.
               | 
               | Kinda surprised base-12 didn't end up dominating. Having
               | so many factors would have made division so much more
               | convenient for mental math, and it is only 2 extra
               | characters to remember.
        
             | bee_rider wrote:
             | I don't think the choice of base is really dependent on
             | finger encoding efficiency. Going 0-5 on a hand has the
             | advantage that we only really care about the "last" finger.
             | 
             | Anyway, if we really want to go crazy, the knuckle and
             | first joint on (my, at least) fingers can be controlled
             | somewhat independently, so I think we can fit in 4 states
             | per finger:                 |   _       |  |  __ _
             | |
        
           | slver wrote:
           | Most of us are programmers here, you are just as used to hex.
           | 
           | Also technically we don't have that many fingers. We have one
           | more finger. We don't have a number digit for ten right? They
           | go zero to nine. But out fingers go zero to ten.
           | 
           | If our numeric base matched our fingers, we should've used
           | base eleven. Not many people think this through :)
           | 
           | I think the real breakthrough is having "order of magnitude"
           | in numbers. So indeed the Roman Numerals suck and probably
           | wouldn't last regardless.
        
             | the_monocle wrote:
             | 0 to 9 are exactly 10 digits.
        
               | depaya wrote:
               | I think their point is that we use our 10 fingers to
               | count to a value of 10. We can use our 10 fingers to
               | represent 0 (no fingers) through 10 (all 10 fingers).
               | This is essentially base 11 if you try to assign a
               | specific digit to each finger.
               | 
               | While I agree with that viewpoint I think it's missing
               | the point. As humans with 10 fingers it's easy for us to
               | group things into increments of 10, so base 10 comes
               | naturally. Think about how you count a quantity over 10:
               | once you run out of fingers you mark down (or remember)
               | that you've already counted one quantity of 10, now
               | you're counting the next quantity of 10, etc...
               | 
               | It's more like a _shifted_ base 10 where we represent
               | digits 1-10 instead of 0-9.
        
               | slver wrote:
               | Everyone is thinking about a "shifted" base 10, yes.
               | 
               | But every base starts with 0, there's no such thing as
               | "shifted base" because then you literally can't represent
               | 0.
               | 
               | Also "zero fingers" is still a thing that exists in this
               | shifted base 10. So it remains base 11.
               | 
               | This is like the classic "0-based indexing" vs. "1-based
               | indexing" dilemma. The "first" thing is represented by 1,
               | we think.
               | 
               | But the "first" year of our life, we're zero years old.
               | The "first" hour after midnight is 0 o'clock. Building
               | your "first" million as a business is the period before
               | you have 1 million. And so on.
        
               | can_count wrote:
               | 0 fingers to 10 fingers is exactly 11 numbers.
        
             | nicetryguy wrote:
             | > you are just as used to hex.
             | 
             | I do 6502 ASM with bit tricks and all and i can tell you
             | straight up that hex is never as intuitive as decimal IMO.
             | 
             | Base eleven sounds like the stuff of nightmares =)
        
               | tenebrisalietum wrote:
               | Where the hex is "intuitive" is showing what's "even" to
               | the CPU.
               | 
               | For example we think of 10, 100, 50 as nice round
               | convenient quantities.
               | 
               | CPUs see 16, 256, 2048 as convenient quantities--in hex
               | that's visible: 0x10, 0x100, 0x800.
        
               | nicetryguy wrote:
               | Right. It lets you see the bits more easily: 0-F is a
               | good representation of 4 bits.
               | 
               | Say i were to name a random hex value like #$9C right now
               | it would take me a few seconds to convert that to decimal
               | in my head though... 156 took me a few seconds to sort
               | out. I don't have to think about what 156 _means_ in
               | decimal because i just _know_ what it is.
        
               | vangelis wrote:
               | The radix I've used since birth is easier than the one I
               | haven't. Wild stuff.
        
               | nicetryguy wrote:
               | Yes i do simplify my posts and try to write them in ways
               | that normal people can understand. Your snide comment is
               | a sign of success =)
        
               | sipos wrote:
               | Do you though? Why is 156 anymore familiar than 9C? I
               | can't imagine 156 things any more than I can 9C things.
        
               | Orou wrote:
               | Isn't it more intuitive for OP codes though?
        
         | emodendroket wrote:
         | It isn't that strange. Learning a language natively is an
         | innate human trait that isn't regulated. The symbols we choose
         | to represent for arithmetic (or to write the language, for that
         | matter) must be learned.
        
       | simonw wrote:
       | This is a really interesting post, let down by a vague title.
       | 
       | The author describes a system they created to help remote health
       | centers in Thailand and Cambodia send disease cases in a
       | structured way via SMS, while working around the difficulties of
       | teaching people to send text messages in those languages (which
       | have a lot of letters, often not made available on handsets).
       | 
       | Their solution was a cardboard disc wheel which could generate
       | numeric codes that could be more easily sent.
       | 
       | The post is from 2010 - I'd love to read a follow-up on this
       | project.
        
         | BiteCode_dev wrote:
         | Did something similar in Africa 10 years ago. We created a
         | whole human writable protocol, carboards to help, and you could
         | control the systems using nokia 3310 charged on a car battery
         | in the middle of the Dogon desert.
         | 
         | Fun times. Also, thanks python for making it way easier than it
         | should have been. GPRS modems are not simple beasts.
        
         | simonw wrote:
         | I found mentions of this "magic wheel" on their blog at
         | https://instedd.org/blog/prince-mahidol-of-songla-magic-whee...
         | and on SlideShare at
         | https://www.slideshare.net/channesuy/instedd-innovation-lab-...
         | but both of those stories were also from 2010.
        
           | handrous wrote:
           | Reminds me of various calculation tools used in, for example,
           | grading school assignments (like circular EZ Graders). Or
           | "feelie" anti-piracy devices from video games, back when they
           | still came in boxes.
        
       | rntksi wrote:
       | I'm amazed at the creativity and the simple-ness of this
       | solution. Working in public health myself, we've often designed
       | systems that became un-usable due to requirements in the field
       | that cannot be met (people not having laptops/PCs or not knowing
       | how to use them or Internet is missing, etc...)
       | 
       | Brilliant write-up, I'd love to know more about how many years
       | this work went on for.
        
         | dogma1138 wrote:
         | While it's creative it's not novel, these "computers" were very
         | common not that long ago and are quite often still used in
         | various applications such as engineering and architecture e.g.
         | slide rulers..
         | 
         | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slide_rule
        
       | mdoms wrote:
       | As long as Americans are obsessed with the idea of SMS they will
       | never get their ideas into the wider world. No one uses SMS. No
       | one.
        
         | JohnL4 wrote:
         | Huh. Strong statement. Maybe look into M-Pesa.
         | 
         | <<Customers who sign up for the M-Pesa service can convert
         | between e-cash and real cash (these are called cash-in / cash-
         | out transactions), and can transfer e-cash from their account
         | to that of another account holder via SMS.>>
         | 
         | https://digital.hbs.edu/platform-rctom/submission/m-pesa-a-m...
        
         | bondant wrote:
         | Plenty of people still use SMS.
         | 
         | Easier than to find if the contact is on
         | Signal/Messenger/Whats'app/Whatever and it works even without
         | having a data plan.
        
         | throwawaysea wrote:
         | SMS works really well in places that have poorer coverage /
         | worse networks. That's partially because it doesn't rely on the
         | 'data' coverage but fundamental telephony technologies that
         | have been around much longer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sho
         | rt_Message_Service_technica...). So basically if you have a
         | signal of any kind, SMS will probably work reliably. Then
         | there's the fact that you don't need any extra app or identity
         | to use it. If you have a phone with a plan, you have no
         | barriers to using SMS. Both these aspects are not as true for
         | the software over Internet messaging solutions, and I think
         | that's why SMS is still widely used and will continue to be
         | widely used.
        
         | comradesmith wrote:
         | SMS is fantastic. In my country there are a few popular
         | messaging apps, it seems like to be connected to everyone you
         | need to be on all of them; but you don't, everyone already has
         | a phone number, and it just works.
         | 
         | You can send hyperlinks if you want, so the medium isn't really
         | all that limiting.
        
         | mmcgaha wrote:
         | Back in 2003 I was chatting with a Dutch guy who was ragging on
         | the US because we hardly used SMS. I guess we will eventually
         | catch up to what the rest of the world is using now as they
         | move on to something more spectacular.
        
       | davb wrote:
       | Ah, the Mix 'n' Mojo [0] lives on!
       | 
       | [0] https://www.oldgames.sk/codewheel/monkey-island-2-mix-n-mojo
        
       | maerF0x0 wrote:
       | Spoiler: Essentially the author is talking about a custom
       | encoding.
       | 
       | This is something I always try to impress to other engineers.
       | Everything is just an encoding to binary. How we interpret it is
       | entirely up to us. Even the fact that we choose to use 8 bits as
       | a grouping.
       | 
       | Often this leads to much more efficient implementations...
       | 
       | Of course only do it where/when it matters.
        
         | s_dev wrote:
         | Old school vending machines use 9 bit bytes. In case anyone was
         | looking for a example.
        
         | goldenkey wrote:
         | Binary is what we use on computers. It can encode anything but
         | not always optimally. A quark's color for instance, is ternary.
         | 
         | You'd probably benefit from reading about fractional bit
         | encodings:
         | 
         | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27698522
        
           | maerF0x0 wrote:
           | Whoa . That's pretty cool, TIL, thank you!
        
       | thrwaeasddsaf wrote:
       | Perhaps one beautiful day in the future: Text and Pictures
       | Without Javascript.
        
         | 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
         | That day already happened, in the past.
         | 
         | I still practice this every day. For example, weather services
         | usually have a continually updated image of current radar. I
         | just "load" the image directly and refresh the "page" to
         | update. No HTML. No Javascript.
         | 
         | However, most weather websites are full scripts, tracking and
         | ads.
         | 
         | Javascript is choice, but it is not a requirement.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-07-01 23:00 UTC)