Categories
Aircraft Bicycles Dayton Ohio History

The Ordinary

Part 1 of 3โ€ฆ

The man sitting atop a penny-farthing in the summer of 1879 is five feet off the ground. He weighs maybe one hundred and fifty pounds. The wheel beneath him is fifty-four inches across โ€” taller than most of the children who stop to watch him pass. He got up there by running alongside the machine, hooking a foot on a small peg above the rear wheel, and vaulting himself upward in a single practiced motion. He will dismount the same way: a controlled fall forward, a hop, gravity made manageable by repetition. He has done this so many times that he no longer thinks about it. He thinks about the road ahead.

He is not a daredevil. He is a commuter.

The people on the sidewalk call his machine a penny-farthing, which is a joke dressed up as a name. A penny was the largest British coin; a farthing the smallest, worth one quarter of a penny. Seen from the street, the big front wheel and its tiny rear companion looked exactly like the two coins set side by side. Some wit had noticed, and the name stuck. The riders themselves refused it. They called their machine the ordinary โ€” because to them, it was exactly that, the standard form, the rational machine, the obvious answer. They said ordinary with complete seriousness while everyone else was calling it loose change.

This tells you something about the people who rode it. And about the machine they thought they were riding.

The penny-farthing was not a circus prop. It was the highest expression of an engineering logic that had no other options. The pedals connected directly to the front axle. One rotation of the legs meant one rotation of the wheel. If you wanted to go faster, you needed a bigger wheel. It was that simple. It was that brutal. The geometry of human ambition ran directly through the circumference of that front wheel, and the front wheel kept getting bigger, and the riders kept climbing higher, until the whole enterprise teetered at the edge of what a human being could reasonably mount and survive.

The high-wheeler was not a mistake. It was the answer to a question no one yet knew how to ask differently.

The machines were built in Coventry, England, by craftsmen who bent and brazed steel frames by hand, fitted wire spokes under tension โ€” a Starley innovation that made the wheel lighter than anyone expected โ€” and pressed solid rubber tires onto rims by feel and experience. James Starley had essentially invented the industry in 1871, and Coventry became its Detroit: a concentration of metalworking skill that fed on itself, that knew things in its hands it couldnโ€™t fully explain on paper.

Then, in the mid-1880s, someone put a chain on it.

The chain-and-sprocket drive seems obvious now, the way all elegant solutions seem obvious after the fact. Decouple the pedals from the wheel. Run a chain from a sprocket near the riderโ€™s feet to a smaller sprocket at the rear axle. Suddenly the wheel didnโ€™t have to be enormous โ€” the gearing could do what only size had done before. The front wheel came down. The rear wheel came up to match it. The rider dropped five feet closer to the earth. The machine that emerged from this rearrangement was called, without any particular irony, the safety bicycle. It was safe. It was fast. It was something a woman in a skirt could ride, something a child could learn on, something that didnโ€™t require a running vault to mount.

The ordinary had been a machine for athletes. The safety bicycle was a machine for everyone.

By the 1890s it had become something close to a religious phenomenon. Factories couldnโ€™t keep up with demand. Doctors wrote approvingly of its effects on the nervous system, the cardiovascular system, the general disposition of the modern soul. Roads were improved because cyclists demanded it. The bicycle arrived before the automobile and prepared the world for it โ€” softened the ground, culturally speaking, for the idea that ordinary people might move through space under their own mechanical power, faster than their feet could carry them, farther than their legs could take them. It was the first technology to feel like freedom to people who had never felt that way before.

In Dayton, Ohio, two brothers watched all of this happen and decided to get into the business.

Orville and Wilbur Wright were not, in the beginning, aviation pioneers. They were bicycle mechanics. They opened their shop in 1892, right at the peak of the craze, and what they learned there โ€” the feel of a machine in motion, the gyroscopic principles of balance and control, the importance of getting the weight right, the importance of understanding what a human body can and cannot do at speed โ€” was an education no university offered and no book could fully provide. They learned it with their hands. They learned it in the gap between the machine that existed and the machine that should exist.

The Wrights were not the only ones in Dayton thinking about bicycles. The Huffman Manufacturing Company had opened its doors the same year as the Wright Cycle Company โ€” 1892, the peak of the craze, the same fever in the same city. Huffman would eventually become Huffy, and Huffy would eventually become the bicycle every American child found under the Christmas tree. Dayton was doing something in those years. It was a city that couldnโ€™t stop thinking about how people move. The precision those Coventry craftsmen had developed โ€” interchangeable parts, tight tolerances, the discipline of making things that had to work โ€” migrated into every bicycle shop that followed, including a small one on West Third Street.

The chain drive had taught the world that the right mechanical insight could make an impossible thing ordinary. You didnโ€™t have to accept the constraints you were handed. You could re-ask the question.

Orville and Wilbur had been paying attention.

When they went to Kitty Hawk in 1903, they brought with them a bicycle chain. It connected the engine to the propellers. The same principle โ€” a sprocket, a chain, a transferred force โ€” that had brought the penny-farthing rider down from his absurd perch now lifted two men off the ground for the first time in human history.

The man on the high-wheeler in 1879 did not know he was riding toward the Wright Brothers. He was just going to work. But the machine beneath him, the one everybody called loose change and he called ordinary, was already asking the question that would take twenty years to answer.

What happens when you finally get the wheel the right size?


The roller chain โ€” the specific form that connected pedal to wheel and made the safety bicycle possible โ€” was invented in Manchester in 1879 by a Swiss engineer named Hans Renold. He was refining a design that Leonardo da Vinci had sketched in a notebook around 1500. Leonardo could imagine it. He couldnโ€™t make it. The world needed four hundred years of improving machine tools before anyone could hold the tolerances tight enough to build what Leonardo had already seen. The idea arrived centuries before the craft caught up. It is always this way.

Categories
AI California San Francisco/California

Distant Billboards

Greg Isenberg came back from San Francisco with seventeen observations. The billboards advertising either B2B inference infrastructure or vertical agent companies, the seed rounds, the forward-deployed engineers, the founders showing each other their Obsidian vaults like athletes comparing gym routines.

He noted an important thing in observation fifteen, almost as an aside.

Walking around the Mission I noticed something: the street-level businesses, the taquerias, the barbershops, the laundromats โ€” none of them use any AI at all.

Everett Rogers formalized the technology diffusion model in 1962. He was studying hybrid seed corn in Iowa. He noticed that the farmers who adopted early weren’t just better informed โ€” they had different social networks, different relationships to risk, different orientations toward outside knowledge. The late adopters weren’t slower. They were operating from a different set of facts about what was safe to try.

Those AI billboards in SoMa are not visible in the Mission. That’s not metaphor. That’s just geography.

What strikes me about the taqueria is not that it’s behind. It’s that the conversation happening a mile away โ€” about MCP endpoints and agent fleets โ€” is not legible to it. The vocabulary doesn’t exist there yet. Nobody has sat across from the woman making carnitas for twenty years and said: here is what this could do for your ordering, your scheduling, your response to a customer who asks on Yelp at 11pm whether you’re open on Monday. One day her daughter or son might.

The builder class optimizes for the builder class. You build what you understand, for people whose problems you can see. The founders in SoMa understand each other’s problems with extraordinary precision.

The woman making carnitas has different problems โ€” thinner margins, less access to capital, relationships built over decades that don’t easily transfer to a new system. Nobody is at the Series A meeting making the case that her problems are the interesting ones.

The historian of technology David Nye wrote about the “technological sublime” โ€” the awe Americans felt in the nineteenth century standing before a great bridge or a locomotive or the first electrified city. The feeling was real. But the sublime is a view from a particular angle. The workers who built the bridge experienced something quite different. The families displaced by the railroad’s right-of-way experienced something different still.

The question isn’t whether the technology will eventually reach her. It will. The diffusion curve is patient. It likely will surprise.

The question is whether anyone is doing the translation work. The act of standing in a specific kind of life and asking: what would this actually change here? In the actual kitchen, on the actual Tuesday.

Isenberg noted that the coworking spaces in SF are half empty but the coffee shops are packed. People want to be around people.

The taqueria is also a place where people want to be around people. It has been that for a long time.

She’ll adapt. She’s been adapting for twenty years.

But that’s a very different story than the one being told in San Francisco on those billboards.

Categories
AI History

The Arrival

Yoshua Bengio spent forty years building the foundation of modern artificial intelligence. He won the Turing Award for it. And he didnโ€™t think heโ€™d live to see it work.

Thatโ€™s the quiet fact buried inside Stephen Wittโ€™s New Yorker profile of him. Bengio โ€” one of the three researchers whose decades-long bet on neural networks eventually became the architecture underlying every large language model running today โ€” had made peace with the idea that the thing he was building was a multi-generational project. Something for his successors to finish. Then Witt writes: โ€œone day in late 2022, the technology had simply arrived. He compared it to meeting an extraterrestrial.โ€

Hemingway once described bankruptcy happening two ways: gradually, then suddenly. He meant ruin. Bengio experienced something harder to name โ€” not ruin but arrival, which carries its own vertigo. The gradually was four decades of work that most of his peers considered quixotic. The suddenly was a Tuesday in November when a chat interface went live and the world quietly changed.

What unsettles me about the extraterrestrial comparison isnโ€™t the strangeness it implies. Itโ€™s the distance. You meet an alien; you donโ€™t meet something you made. The metaphor suggests that even its creator couldnโ€™t fully recognize it โ€” that the thing, once arrived, belonged to a category that exceeded its own origins.

We donโ€™t have good language for this. Breakthrough, inflection point, paradigm shift โ€” these are words people reach for after the fact, when theyโ€™re building timelines. What Bengio seems to be describing is the experience of standing in front of a threshold you spent your life approaching, and finding it already behind you.

The technology didnโ€™t ask permission. It didnโ€™t announce itself.

It arrived.