> This wasn’t the first case of attributing unexpected mechanical defects to invisible pests. The popular term “bug” to describe technical glitches was used as early as 1876.
I always thought the term "bug" came from people finding a literal bug stuck in the machinery of an early computer [1], TIL that Edison was using the term in the 1800s.
it always surprises me when people have this takeaway, as "first actual case" clearly indicates prior not-actual cases, where the term was merely used as a metaphor for errors.
For the longest period machinery involved wooden components (wheels, shafts etc). Maybe the term "bug" originates from wood-eating bugs that were literally eating parts of the machinery or at least affecting its function?
Edison's usage makes sense regardless of what the machine is made of. Bugs (insects) are a great representation of the types of defects he's describing – small, hard to notice, unwelcome, and some have the potential to cause serious damage if ignored.
Is it your contention that by the time the English language was developed no machines had any wooden parts? And if so - just when do you think the English language was developed. Although it seems wrong to speak of a language as being developed.
I was referring to Early Modern English, aka the 1700s.
The earliest written evidence of the word "bug" used in this context is from the 19th century. By that time, most machines were made from metallic parts.
Of course, more primitive machines were still using wooden parts, as they do today! Of course, the word "bug" might have been used in this context centuries earlier, without producing any written records!
But let's not kid ourselves. OP had no evidence of their theory whatsoever. They just made up a story.
I can make up an equally "likely" theory: maybe people were often saying "oh, I've made a big mistake", and "big mistake" turned into "bug mistake", which was then shortened to "bug".
More likely, the word bug itself had different connotations at the time.
No surprise that the word bug itself is etymologically linked to goblins or ghosts in the time period referred to. And fits perfectly with the usage in the quoted paragraph.
What a vitriolic and absurdly pseudo-scientific reaction to the mere suggestion that the concept of bugs breaking machines may have been more literal in past, wood-dominated eras...
The probing question is whether such failure modes (from bugs) were indeed common in pre-industrial machines (so as to warrant popular expressions). Thats something an actual expert could opine on with some impact.
No, dude, it was you who put forward a Joe Rogan-tier pseudoscientific theory about the usage of the word "bug" with no evidence backing it whatsoever.
It needs to be called out, before people start misquoting it as fact, like how people ran with the 100% pseudoscientific glove-knitting theory for Roman dodecahedrons, which some people still quote on this board as if it had any scientific merit at all.
I suggest re-reading the original comment with fresh eyes. The author didn't put forth a theory or "made up a story" as you suggest. They asked a genuinely curious comment that was obvious as such.
I distinctly remember a Rob Ager/Collative Learning YouTube video on Gremlins. It was very enlightening on how deep the Gremlin mythology goes, but alas I can't find it right now.
He does list three videos on his page. An 8-minute video, 30 minute video, and 93 minute video. You might have to buy them...
Even if you/I can't find the gremlin video, I highly recommend you watch any of Rob Ager's videos on movies you think you already know. He does do a lot of work on Stanley Kubrick. He will insist The Shining isn't his favorite movie, but that's hard to believe with how much he has focused on it. Anyways, Collative Learning is an excellent rabbit hole to fall down.
Edit: Okay I'm a doofus, on mobile I needed to scroll horizontally to find the watch links. I don't recognize the 8-minute video or 30 minute video, so it must have been the 93 minute video that I saw.
The articel mentions gremlins in the context of WWII but neglects to mention the animated cartoon "Russian Rhapsody" which I vividly remember from childhood, wherein Hitler personally flies a bomber which is disassembled in flight by gremlins:
> Forty years ago, Hollywood made gremlins loveable—portraying them as adorable, furry creatures.
Did the author even watch the movie?
The fluffy lovable creatures are mogwai, and they transform into the not-at-all furry or loveable gremlins if fed after midnight. They arent gremlins until they transform.
This inaccuracy invalidates the entire “Hollywood gremlin” discrepancy that is being made for much of the article.
The magnitude of the Gremlins bait-and-switch still baffles me. They marketed it as a family/kids' film; it was a horror/comedy for adults. How did the studio think that was going to play out?
Anyway, unless you've seen the film or heard people like us rant about it, it's a pretty easy mistake to make.
> How did the studio think that was going to play out?
Well, it was the 80s. Studios got away with that kind of stuff all the time.
On the author's defense, the GP seem to have overlooked the remaining of the paragraph. But if he actually insisted on that, widely citing a movie without even watching it wouldn't deserve that excuse.
>How did the studio think that was going to play out?
I'm hoping they thought it was going to be a big hit earning a couple hundred millions of dollars and with a very profitable toy line otherwise they would have been sorely disappointed.
I always understood the limit as being from midnight to dawn. Midnight should probably be understood as the lunar zenith rather than the clock time as well.
I always thought the term "bug" came from people finding a literal bug stuck in the machinery of an early computer [1], TIL that Edison was using the term in the 1800s.
[1] - https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/worlds-fir...