Night_stalker
Slava Ukraini!
- Pronouns
- He/Him
However Dragon powers her suits.syed said:
I mean, nuclear's out. AM's sure as hell out, fusion's impractical...
Falling Iron (IM MCU/WORM)
- Thread starter Arthur Hansen
- Start date
- Crossover
I mean, nuclear's out. AM's sure as hell out, fusion's impractical...
Arthur Hansen
Author of no Authority.
- Location
- Utah, behind the Zion Curtain.
Sorta. I mean, I'd feel just about dead stuck to a briefcase with a cord attached to my chest too.BF110C4 said:
Delta Green
Big Boss
- Location
- Classified
I also get the feeling he might also consider it a reminder of Dr. Yinsin's help and sacrifice, especially since it seemed so senseless to him.arthurh3535 said:
Getting the shrapnel fixed would make sense, of course, but I'd still see Tony keeping the ARC reactor in his chest. Also doubles as a trademark, you know!
I think it's reminder. Every time he looks at his chest, or twists the wrong, he's reminded of the shrapnel in his chest, and he thinks "my weapons did this". And then he goes and works on improving the world, making up for all the harm he did unwittingly.sdarian said:
Some of it actually happens in Worm, you know. For example, Coil arms his mercenaries and protects his hidden base with laser weaponry (shown when Crawler attacks). This indicates that there's some wider technology dissemination. Also, a program would be better for this purpose for several reasons:The Unicorn said:
1) You can assign the team of engineers that worked with the tinker on making the device to every copy of the device ever sold if you want to go mass-producing it
2) A team of engineers can be argued to be far more intrusive to the developmental process than a dumb A.I. assistant
3) The team of engineers doesn't get the benefit of an A.I. network sharing data on the maintenance issues later (well, they do, in the natural "talk about things" way, but it's less effective).
Arthur Hansen
Author of no Authority.
- Location
- Utah, behind the Zion Curtain.
I'd assume that there is a shaker rating while they work on their equipment. That's probably L33T's problem is that he can only semi-replicate his shaker-aura.esran said:
Citation needed.esran said:
Armsmaster does this:
+
=
It's called miniaturization.
We know what Tinker do, it's explained in a pretty good detail, as well as the mechanism of how they get to do what they do. Reality warping isn't mentioned, as far as I know.
Arthur Hansen
Author of no Authority.
- Location
- Utah, behind the Zion Curtain.
Eh, there is something quirky that even stuff that should be replicatable is not easily copied. So a minor Shaker power to 'make it right' sorta works.
They can replicate it... hell, Dragon was seen as special in that she was so good at it, not that she was the only one able to use others' designs. They just don't have the science base for how a lot of it works, and the tinkers themselves often have mental issues. But since Dragon was doing that well before she triggered, if she did trigger, reproduction can't be an innate problem.
iirc one of the PRTs selling points was access to the schematics of other tinkers.
iirc one of the PRTs selling points was access to the schematics of other tinkers.
In the assembly process, yeah, I guess so (supernatural dexterity of fingers while working, ability to draw straight lines and precise diagrams for circuit boards, etc), but not in how things work.arthurh3535 said:
I.e. I can easily buy there being "undocumented" steps in the creation process (to compensate for the lack of hyper-advanced laboratory and assembly lines), but the devices themselves should be mundane.
At least this is my opinion.
EDIT:
Also this. Tinker tech does get replicated, somewhat (see laser weaponry Coil uses, containment foam). It's just hard to do.ir_fane said:
Arthur Hansen
Author of no Authority.
- Location
- Utah, behind the Zion Curtain.
Yes, but it takes them months (if not years) to really figure it out. There might be a nano-assembler that is supposed to be used by the original race. Or some quantum tunneling mumbo-jumbo.ir_fane said:
It would take someone working in a super-primitive facilities to make a master piece...
...like Tony Stark did!
True. One aspect of it, is, undoubtedly, that no one tinker gets all the techbase. So their creations are all very shizo-tech (parts advanced, parts very primitive, cobbled together in an equivalent of a cave with an equivalent of a box of scraps). Not to mention whatever intentional flaws are there in tinker powers. All those would make replicating (or, more correctly, adapting and at least somewhat reverse-engineering) the technology that much harder.arthurh3535 said:Yes, but it takes them months (if not years) to really figure it out. There might be a nano-assembler that is supposed to be used by the original race. Or some quantum tunneling mumbo-jumbo.
It would take someone working in a super-primitive facilities to make a master piece...
...like Tony Stark did!
Aranfan
Team Plasma Grunt
ITT: People massively underestimate how hard it is to actually reverse engineer tech you don't know about.
I mean hell, the attempts to reverse engineer Soviet marine technology by the US and vice-verse? Both sides were completely wrong where they didn't have the actual schematics supplied by their spies. And that's on the same tech-level working on known principles for known goals. It is perfectly realistic that the mundanes are only now figuring out some of the bare bones basics out of Hero's stuff, and Hero was one of the first tinkers on record.
I mean hell, the attempts to reverse engineer Soviet marine technology by the US and vice-verse? Both sides were completely wrong where they didn't have the actual schematics supplied by their spies. And that's on the same tech-level working on known principles for known goals. It is perfectly realistic that the mundanes are only now figuring out some of the bare bones basics out of Hero's stuff, and Hero was one of the first tinkers on record.
Arthur Hansen
Author of no Authority.
- Location
- Utah, behind the Zion Curtain.
Actually, I heard that China tried to make their own version of a Boeing 747 once instead of buy it from the US company.Aranfan said:
Couldn't take off or something, as I understand it.
Aranfan
Team Plasma Grunt
Exactly. Technology is incredibly difficult to reverse engineer blind, even if you know all the principles behind it. If you don't, and the tech has tighter tolerances than your non-laboratory equipment can make? Good fucking luck.arthurh3535 said:
Technology, tends to be extremely finicky, and the more advanced said technology is, the more this generally tends to be true.
Here's my interpretation: Yes you can watch and record everything a Tinker does to make a piece of tech, but you'd have no idea why he's doing any of what he's doing. And this is very much a problem.
Let me give an example: You watch a Tinker install a gyro into a particular part of a high-tech bike, but no one but said Tinker would have any idea why that gyro is there. It could be that it's there for general stability, and every bike like it that the Tinker makes needs it. So you make the same (or as close to it as possible, given that there's no way to guarantee that it's absolutely exact given today's tech) gyro, put it in the same place, and you think it should work, right?
However, what if the Tinker placed it because the weight distribution due to metal makeup (minor metal impurities) makes the bike's center of gravity 3 mm lower than where it's supposed to be, and without the gyro to compensate, it'll quickly produce wear and tear in a completely different place in the bike, which will soon destroy certain essential functionality. However, if the balance was off a different amount, or is in a slightly different place, then said gyro needs to be either calibrated differently or placed in a different place to perform the same compensation.
Now, how's someone who doesn't know any of this, and only has the video of the Tinker putting the bike together, going to compensate for this? How would they even know that the center of gravity not what it's actually supposed to be?
And in an advanced, and most likely complicated, piece of technology, there's going to be hundreds, if not thousands or more parts exactly like that gyro. The Tinker would know what it's for, as well as where to place it and how to calibrate it to accomplish what it needs to let the machine work, but no one else does. How would anyone besides the Tinker in question know the difference between an essential part that needs to be in every bike and a piece to compensate for minor variances in manufacture (and there is going to be variances. Modern tech isn't good enough for it to be otherwise)?
So lets say that we also get the Tinker to record commentary on everything he does as he's making the bike. Then, when you're rebuilding, it happens that minor manufacturing differences resulted in a rotor contributing to a very small bit of vibration in another part of the bike. You might think it's harmless, but what if it actually isn't, and that the vibration is slightly beyond tolerance, and that it would cause fast degradation in some other part of the vehicle if it wasn't within tolerance? How would you know? It was easily within tolerance when the Tinker made his, so he didn't bother to comment on it. Thus, how would you know?
So, how can you do this? Are you going to get the Tinker to write out a manual on every single tiny detail that must be within tolerance, and do this for every part? Even if he writes up a 400 page textbook (which still might not be enough), it's quite likely that he might have missed one here or there, either just because he forgot or lost track (given that he'd be the only author, editor, and fact checker, it's quite likely), or because he just plain didn't think that something so unlikely would happen, but during manufacture, some dumb-ass would stumble across it anyways.
So yeah, that's basically what it's like for every piece of Tinker tech. There's a thousand different exceptions, with a thousand different variance for each exception, and a thousand different ways that it should be handled, depending on all of those thousand other exceptions and their thousand variances. Good luck trying to teach someone to work this shit. You'd have better luck trying to cram college level Calculus I down the throat of an elementary student who barely finished learning long multiplication. At least there, you'd know the theories behind it all, and can derive your way up to calculus. With Tinker tech though... Yeah, as I said, good luck...
Here's my interpretation: Yes you can watch and record everything a Tinker does to make a piece of tech, but you'd have no idea why he's doing any of what he's doing. And this is very much a problem.
Let me give an example: You watch a Tinker install a gyro into a particular part of a high-tech bike, but no one but said Tinker would have any idea why that gyro is there. It could be that it's there for general stability, and every bike like it that the Tinker makes needs it. So you make the same (or as close to it as possible, given that there's no way to guarantee that it's absolutely exact given today's tech) gyro, put it in the same place, and you think it should work, right?
However, what if the Tinker placed it because the weight distribution due to metal makeup (minor metal impurities) makes the bike's center of gravity 3 mm lower than where it's supposed to be, and without the gyro to compensate, it'll quickly produce wear and tear in a completely different place in the bike, which will soon destroy certain essential functionality. However, if the balance was off a different amount, or is in a slightly different place, then said gyro needs to be either calibrated differently or placed in a different place to perform the same compensation.
Now, how's someone who doesn't know any of this, and only has the video of the Tinker putting the bike together, going to compensate for this? How would they even know that the center of gravity not what it's actually supposed to be?
And in an advanced, and most likely complicated, piece of technology, there's going to be hundreds, if not thousands or more parts exactly like that gyro. The Tinker would know what it's for, as well as where to place it and how to calibrate it to accomplish what it needs to let the machine work, but no one else does. How would anyone besides the Tinker in question know the difference between an essential part that needs to be in every bike and a piece to compensate for minor variances in manufacture (and there is going to be variances. Modern tech isn't good enough for it to be otherwise)?
So lets say that we also get the Tinker to record commentary on everything he does as he's making the bike. Then, when you're rebuilding, it happens that minor manufacturing differences resulted in a rotor contributing to a very small bit of vibration in another part of the bike. You might think it's harmless, but what if it actually isn't, and that the vibration is slightly beyond tolerance, and that it would cause fast degradation in some other part of the vehicle if it wasn't within tolerance? How would you know? It was easily within tolerance when the Tinker made his, so he didn't bother to comment on it. Thus, how would you know?
So, how can you do this? Are you going to get the Tinker to write out a manual on every single tiny detail that must be within tolerance, and do this for every part? Even if he writes up a 400 page textbook (which still might not be enough), it's quite likely that he might have missed one here or there, either just because he forgot or lost track (given that he'd be the only author, editor, and fact checker, it's quite likely), or because he just plain didn't think that something so unlikely would happen, but during manufacture, some dumb-ass would stumble across it anyways.
So yeah, that's basically what it's like for every piece of Tinker tech. There's a thousand different exceptions, with a thousand different variance for each exception, and a thousand different ways that it should be handled, depending on all of those thousand other exceptions and their thousand variances. Good luck trying to teach someone to work this shit. You'd have better luck trying to cram college level Calculus I down the throat of an elementary student who barely finished learning long multiplication. At least there, you'd know the theories behind it all, and can derive your way up to calculus. With Tinker tech though... Yeah, as I said, good luck...
Or 3: High-level tinker tech is so godawfully advanced and hard to maintain at the current tech level that it wasn't reverse-engineered yet (because it was about two decades since the first tinker appeared), and it isn't anywhere near economically and strategically viable to attempt to mass-produce tinker devices that may fail after one use.JTibbs said:
It's more effective to funnel sh*tloads of money that would be spent on reverse-engineering tinker technology (with no real guarantee of success in the period where it would help anyone) to tinkers directly, so they could produce more advanced, effective and useful devices for themselves, as well as to relief operations, help programs mitigating enbringer impact and such. Priorities.
Tinkers produce tools they intend to use. There's a difference between a pencil and a printer.
edit: well, some of them produce tools as a schtick too. They also get endbrought (Dragon's home town was), but meh. Point stands. A personal lab and a factory have very different design schemas.
edit: well, some of them produce tools as a schtick too. They also get endbrought (Dragon's home town was), but meh. Point stands. A personal lab and a factory have very different design schemas.
It would. You could either spend several billion dollars and tie up a large R&D center for several years (or decades) with no real guarantee of succes. Or you could spend those billions on relief efforts, social programs that would make more capes join PRT instead of going villain and exploring alternative possibilities (like escaping Earth).JTibbs said:
Tinker tech is built in an equivalent of a cave with a box of scraps. It requires tinkers to maintain and keep operational for any period of time, likely at least partially because of that. To make it mass-producible, it has to be usable by non-tinkers who can't run a constant patch-up, upgrade and compensation routine.JTibbs said:
You are flat out wrong. This is the reason for why we don't have things like moon colonies or O'Neil cylinders - they are economically unviable. That's why North Korea is a sh*thole. Government also needs money, it doesn't produce resources (that money represent) out of nowhere.JTibbs said:
Jtibbs: whoever told you economic considerations weren't a factor for a government lied. The cost per unit remains a factor, as eventually you get a choice between a battalion of troops and squad of armor. Or supporting a squad of capes or a squad of armor. Running down the costs takes time, but they'll certainly implement it when they can -- see what Dragon did with mass-production of armor.
They spend money on what they think will be most effective. Note that most of the tinker gear has failed to do ###all to an end bringer. Armsmaster made something specifically for that purpose, and it failed.
They spend money on what they think will be most effective. Note that most of the tinker gear has failed to do ###all to an end bringer. Armsmaster made something specifically for that purpose, and it failed.
How about 3: Tinker tech is reproducible, but you'd need the equivalent of the Manhattan Project X 50 for each individual piece of tech, if not more.JTibbs said:
They're doing pretty much the same thing after all, only they don't get to start with Einstein's math this time. In fact, they'll first have to find what kind of math might work for it, develop it, hope that they chose the right math and will in fact eventually lead to the math needed to act as the background for that particular piece of tech. If they didn't chose the right math, then they'll have to start over, and they won't every really know if they got it wrong until they manages to stumble across the one that was right.
Then you need to do the same thing, only for the physics part of it. No Oppenheimer either, so you're going to have to start from scratch on the physics part as well. It might be a bit easier than the math part was, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Then you can try to actually start a Manhattan Project for the particular piece of Tech you want.
Oh, did I mention you have to do this for pretty much every single tech that isn't extremely closely related?
Good luck finding the money, brainpower, and sheer luck required.
... you missed the point. Entirely.
The cost is not the important thing for that comparison. The requirement of personal interaction/oversight _is_. It is far, far, easier to make something than it is to make a machine to make something. We usually do the latter for anything we want to work with, for sufficient reasons. Tinkers do the former.
Not that cost isn't an issue. Just not the issue mentioned in my quoted post.
The cost is not the important thing for that comparison. The requirement of personal interaction/oversight _is_. It is far, far, easier to make something than it is to make a machine to make something. We usually do the latter for anything we want to work with, for sufficient reasons. Tinkers do the former.
Not that cost isn't an issue. Just not the issue mentioned in my quoted post.
But why would you want to? It's not going to be a priority because of the costs, time and effort involved. Some low-level tinker tech is reverse engineered - like laser weaponry (low level one) and containment foam. Most of it isn't, because of the cost (time, effort, resources, both human and physical, spent)/benefits issues.JTibbs said:
Chloe Sullivan
Subdefective
- Location
- 1630 Revello Drive, Sunnydale CA
Guys, start a new thread for the tinker discussion alreAdy.