Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

    we mostly don’t use archeological artifacts do we?
Well that's the thing, right? A 5000 year old sword or a 50000 year old pot are static. It's not quite the same as actually using and touching the objects, but you can see them in the museum and it's fine.

Something like a car engine or a video game machine, that's a collection of moving parts. No single part of them is interesting. It's how they work together. Problem is, each time you use them they get a little bit closer to death and they also get closer to death just sitting there in a climate-controlled environment.



You do notice a lot of things about older items by actually using them. Little touches, weight, balance, the way the design is remarkably nice for some particular use or other in ways and for reasons you wouldn't have guessed just from looking at it, the satisfying feel of a hinge or knob or pull. Our local art museum has a collection of elaborate silver tea services—originally intended for actual use, not just decorative—and I bet one would notice a lot of things about them by actually using them, that one is unlikely to spot or understand just by looking, but no-one's likely to ever use them again—at least not for quite a while.


Absolutely. You can't appreciate e.g. how wonderfully balanced a knife is until you use it.

But, it's a narrower gap than with a more complex machine.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: