Top
Best
New

Posted by benbreen 5 days ago

The “mechanical miracle” that ruined Mark Twain’s life(resobscura.substack.com)
143 points | 73 commentspage 2
wolfi1 7 hours ago|
I don't like the first photo, historical photos getting colorized does not feel right to me, as all the colors are just assumptions and the whole thing may have looked different in real and if we look at this photo it sure did
BrenBarn 5 hours ago|
As the caption says, it's not even a real photo of Twain or Paige, it's from a movie.
wolfi1 4 hours ago||
then it does even less make sense
Mistletoe 11 hours ago||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paige_Compositor
abirch 9 hours ago|
When I heard that story, I couldn't help but thing of Steve Jobs "Real Artists Ship." The device was good but the inventor was a perfectionist instead of an entrepreneur.
kazinator 10 hours ago||
> The easy moral of the story is that Twain was gullible and Paige a huxster.

It absolutely isn't. Paige was actually the engineer/tinkerer earnestly developing this machine, which really worked. One of his main problems is that he always thought he needed to improve it more before it was ready. He didn't understand "release early and often": that time-to-market matters.

> Twain felt that he had an insider’s perspective and could intuit how others in publishing would respond to the machine. But he was a printer’s devil no longer: he was a famous, millionaire author.

No longer, perhaps, but Twain had been in the printing industry, so he knew a thing or two. From age 13, Twain worked as a typesetter and compositor for newspapers. So even if he overestimated his knowledge of that, it was not simply the conceit of someone cushioned. What he remembered from his past experiences with freely moving type set by hand would have still been relevant at the time he embarked on this thing with Paige. Linotype was not yet in the market.

Even as the Linotype appeared, it was not obvious that it is superior. It is a gross simplification to say that Paige's machine was imitating manual typesetting whereas the Linotype wasn't. Both machines work by moving letter blocks into rows, and the letters have to be sorted.

Evidently, what the Linotype did better was:

- Linotype characters are negatives, made of brass. Brass is hard and durable. These negatives are cast to positives with molten lead. The lead is melted for reuse after a run of the typesetting. Paige used cast lead pieces, which were more or less permanent. The same letter "A" would be used over and over again in different typesetting jobs. Lead is heavy to move around in the machine as well as soft. Brass allows nicks or slots to be cut in it for easy sorting into bins, but if you do the same with lead, it won't be durable; these features will wear out and cause missorting and jams.

- Paige's system used a complex system for justifying words and filling spaces at the ends of paragraphs and whatnot; it had to calculate and insert spacers. Linotype had clever tricks: special wedge-based expander bars were inserted between words, and then pressure against the bars expanded the sliding wedges to justify an entire line at a time. So in that regard, that's where Linotype deviated from trying to imitate manual typesetting.

- A key difference is that Linotype makes one line at a time, out of brass moulds, with spacers between. This is then cast with molten lead: just one line, called a slug. After a line is cast, the brass moulds can be released and sorted back into bins. The lead slugs are assembled into a page. Paige's system, maybe because of his surname, tried to work more traditionally, typesetting a whole page. That creates a problem because of the limitations of the workspace. If you are doing lines separately, you can have machinery/tooling/jigging above and below the line; there is no consideration for interference with previous or subsequent line of text. This freedom is what enabled the mechanisms for spacing to be developed.

But the thing to note is, that the Linotype changed typesetting work into something more heavily industrial, involving continuous hot metal casting.

Paige and Twain might have been betting on such a change being rejected by the industry, in favor of their solution which was doing the same sort of typesetting.

xoxxala 9 hours ago||
Linotype machines were revolutionary. The New York Times used them for 127 years until 1978 and this documentary shows them in action for the last time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTiCTFdTd60

bluGill 8 hours ago|||
Lineotype they use lead letters. They use an alloy. There was a lot of lead, but there's also other metals in it because lead is too soft to be useful in a press. The alloy had the interest stream property that it has very low shrinkage when it cooled.
DrewADesign 8 hours ago||
Classic letterpress type is lead, antimony and tin, but I don’t know if the so-called hot lead machines used that particular alloy. People usually just call it all “lead type” though.
kazinator 6 hours ago||
Classic letter writing is dread, acrimony and gin.
EagnaIonat 4 hours ago|||
> It absolutely isn't. Paige was actually the engineer ...

It glosses over it and Twains autobiography goes into more detail.

What impressed Twain about it was the demonstration had an operator typing at high speed.

When he got the device, he discovered the operator was typing the same phase over and over. They had memorised it so as to type faster.

So one of the overlooked lessons is don't believe product demos.

shrubble 6 hours ago||
The wedge-shaped expander bars you mention are a brilliant bit of engineering: they deliver perfectly equal spacing across the entire line without any calculation or measurement needed.
saidnooneever 6 hours ago||
super interesting article thanks never heard of the entire story. uncanny parallels to todays humanlikewritermachines and the billions being lost and won there.
gws 8 hours ago||
One lesson to add: Any investment can go to zero, so better size it accordingly.
dyzone 6 hours ago|
Mid cap and large cap mutual funds are pretty safe right?
cubefox 10 hours ago||
[flagged]
jrflowers 8 hours ago|
Reading about a machine from one hundred and fifty years ago and getting progressively more and more upset that the writing doesn’t give sufficient praise to the real topic of every article, my lovely chat bot
cubefox 4 hours ago||
My lovely pocket calculator, he says these are lessons for us, for the present. And, since he is talking about technology in general, presumably for the future. The past events were only the inspiration.
jrflowers 3 hours ago||
I don’t think this article about Mark Twain, a famous guy one hundred and fifty years ago, lost all of his money betting on the wrong thing is about chat bots. He lost his money before all that

We will never know if Mark Twain would have or would not have lost his money betting on chat bots because he lost it all on a different machine that didn’t work

cubefox 1 hour ago||
> Twain’s vision of hundreds of thousands of human-like language machines taking over the world would have to wait a century or two. (...)

> I’d argue that there’s a clear line connecting the automation of typesetting and counting in the late 19th century to the rise of electrical computers a generation later, and then the early Internet and AI research a generation after that. (...)

> I think there are three transferrable lessons we can pull from this story: (...)

shawkinaw 9 hours ago|
> promising the impossible — the 19th century version of Steve Job’s reality distortion field.

Seriously, that’s your best example of that lately? Not, I don’t know, Tesla FSD? Theranos? Bernie Madoff?

dyzone 6 hours ago|
LLM sycophancy