A Kid Spent 9 Years Building a Detailed Paper Model of a Boeing Jet (2017)
ge.com
ge.com
"Group of children place toddler on the moon" wouldn't be more surprising than "Thousands of highly trained grown-ass engineers put man on the moon"?
We care more because we EXPECT impressive things to be accomplished by adults. We expect kids to be morons, because when we were kids, we were morons.
Not the case here, but that is usually what I expect when I see a kid making something news worthy.
Anyone who has a normal kid would understand why people care more that a kid made something - especially something of such amazing detail.
My kids are happy, that's really everything that I hope for, but someone who puts this level of focus and effort into their work is not what very many people with kids would consider normal.
It might be unusual for kids to make something that would still be interesting if an adult had made it. But, their are millions of kids out there.
I'm sure my Mum thought I was just wasting time on the computer at 8, but I'm where I am today because of it. But this is equivalent to me having reverse engineered and coded a commercial piece of software that I began in high school... that never happened, and I loved programming.
The way I think of clickbait is this: You should always write the most effective headline you can, which I'd measure in terms of the click-thru rate. But if the content doesn't pay off, I'll stop trusting you.
For example, I'll gladly click any clickbait from Cracked because their articles almost always pay off. If they say they have 23 surprising things, you can bet there will be 23 things that surprise me. By contrast, I'd never click a BuzzFeed link because they spent years proving their headlines never pay off.
Update: You know, it's cool if you need to downvote things, but it'd be helpful if you had the courage to comment on why you're downvoting. I don't care about the points (it's just gamification folks), but my obsessive brain is now wondering who I offended and how. Is it for disliking BuzzFeed? For liking Cracked? For suggesting clickbait-style headlines can be justified? For thinking this particular headline was justified? It reminds me of an old job I had where everyone in the company did an annual evaluation of everyone else in the company, anonymously. We just rated people, with no ability to explain why we gave them that rating. It ended up serving no instructive purpose and was just a way of finding out how many people hated you.
That degree of focus is extraordinary. I think of myself as meticulous and detailed but this is several levels beyond.
"I was not born with these skills, I developed them over time. And the original model was actually pretty crude. And I've really learned a lot over the past number of years, and that's how I've gotten to where I am at now."
I could have built that model plane for sure. The amazing part that's worth giving credit for is that someone did sit down and dedicate all that time to actually doing it
I think the key is to find things that cause you not to care about the opportunity cost of everything you're missing because you're doing the thing you most want to do.
Right now I'm at a point in my life where I'm seriously considering shunning all media, not just social media, but media altogether.
The constant nagging reminder of the opportunity cost of things I'm missing because the choices I make pander to responsibility instead of fun and happiness while all those around me sink themselves into debt having fun is depressing. I have nobody to blame but myself of course, but the media constantly showing you what you're missing out on definitely doesn't help.
Wired has a good video of him on YouTube.
What I find interesting is that it really is made entirely of file folder cardstock.
Most model makers would have chosen foamcore or sculptable foam. But here, even the hinged parts and wheels are made of paper.
I could see it ending up in a museum collection, but probably not MoMA e.g., unless he gets famous. Art collectors won't buy it unless he has a body of work that other people can buy, too. Until then he's looking at aviation/industrial model collectors and those values are way lower.
EDIT: which is perverse, yes, and I agree with the sentiments in your comment!
This man is lucky enough to have some press, so if he ever decides to sell it he could probably get a decent price. It probably won't sell for more than art installations without him having displayed it unless he has contacts in industry.
He might find himself a niche buyer, though: Boeing, for example, or a number of aircraft hobbyists. Obviously, the company will probably pay more. Hobbyists aren't as likely to have "big money", like so many ordinary art buyers. This may very well limit his income from such things.
Now, more specifically, GE or any company as such: Considering the scope of this man's research and skills, they may or may not be interested in the artistic side of his skills. This is a man who has studied engineering, has spent numerous years looking at the details of airplane design, and has constructed delicate, movable parts alongside support bearing parts for that airplane ... out of freaking paper. This project could be the antithesis of art. It could be the most hideous thing you or I have laid eyes on. But nevertheless, it took serious dedication and attention to detail. The man worked with a material to the full potential that he has been able to do and designed parts. I can seriously see why this man would wind up working for GE. The artwork is a secondary but very complimentary skill.
Personally, I would absolutely love this man to get that and use it to, in part, fund his artistic career. Imagine if he took his skills and was more free with them. He could make impressive futuristic and surrealistic scenes with these skills. Miniature worlds, movie models, and so on.
(Full disclosure: I'm an artist, of the sort that doesn't make much money from my work. If I were rich, I'd fund my own art fun to a larger degree.)
I can't imagine the amount of patience and focus this guy has.
No one ever checks those stories
A kid is, generally, younger than 13, though a 13 year old can sometimes be called a "kid". An 8-10 year old fits squarely in the "kid" bracket.
Assuming the article got his current age right, he was 16 when he started the model, and 19 when he started posting to Flickr (and amazing progress by then; most of the model was ready).
So I think it does qualify as a "kid". Maybe a more precise title would be "Artist started building a paper model of a Boeing jet when he was a teenager; took 9 years to finish", but I didn't feel deceived by the current title.
[1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/lucaiaconistewart/11782600196/...
'Kid' is baity too, but there are degrees.
Edit: Since I've been called out as sexist, I should note that I apply this equally to women. I've likewise met 40-year-old girls and 17-year-old women, and the difference between them is the same: The capability to earn a stable income and take responsibility for themselves and others.
Sometimes being part of a partnership means you focus on internal rather than external roles: Supporting the family instead of earning an income. Who does what is then negotiable within the family, and that's OK.
We call women, with no stable income but devotes her life to her household, women. We don’t call them girls because ‘they don’t have a stable income’.
I was slightly confused when the video began. (Both by the level of detail a 9 year old kid could achieve and then the age of the "kid"!)
the pleasure
> what result?
a wonderful piece of work, self accomplishment, vast sum of knowledge in both airplanes and "sculpture", find any job in modeling with a snap and headline on HN :)