The water from mines was then put into canals, which floated canal boats loaded with coal from the mines into towns. This cheap energy allowed the populations of towns to grow, and soon later powered factories in those towns.
The trains thing did come a bit later, but the steam engines were already causing a revolution.
You're confused and not even contradicting what I said. Read it again.
Steam engines (which rocked a bar, not rotated a shaft) were put to use draining water out of coal mines. They were powered by that same coal, and the water they pumped out was put right into the canals (where else would you put it?). This made coal cheaper, which in turn allowed more people to move from the country to the cities because cities were no longer reliant on firewood. Growing urban populations was demanded and supported by growing industry in those cities.
My whole point is that all of these factors complimented each other, they created a feedback loop that was the industrial revolution. Trains came later, after the industrial revolution was already well underway. That's what I said already.
Perhaps I misread. I took your comment to imply that the dewatering pumps were used to fill the canals, thus providing transportation infrastructure.
My original comment was in response to the statement that improved locomotion was an obvious consequence of the steam engine.
I contend that is was not obvious. The first walking beam engines were more like buildings, built in place (largely of masonry) and not portable at all.
The steam engine certainly revolutionized transportation, however I doubt that Newcomen or even Watt looked at their work and thought "this is going to change shipping forever".
Like I said, it took a generation to get to revolving shaft, and then another to get to revolution.
Today is probably like that with regard to AI. The pace of change is much faster now, but we still have no idea what the world will be like after this tech matures.
There is a world beyond startup exits and stock options and it is a sustainable non profit public good entity. It blows my mind that HN doesn’t have this nuance but I guess the fog of war sets in outside of the Bay Area in California and nobody can see shit outside of the lingering mist of Silicon Valley.
Is it not better to be supported in your effort to do good by being able to volunteer for a stable non-profit over many years? That organisation would have a long term presence and huge influence. It could even lobby the local council or government.
In case you’re confused - the church does that and it is 100% dependent on volunteers who believe.
The difference is that startups are generally very motivated to spend their money well, and non-profits are... not.
It's the difference between the profit motive (simple and easy to understand) and just hoping that the nonprofit leadership is individually motivated (which is much more communicated and hard to verify).
When a startup blows up from overspending, a few investors are out their own money. When a nonprofit does, it tends to stiff the well-meaning public that trusted it with their cash.
The two are not the same. Nobody cares about the rich making a bad investment, but whenever a nonprofit blows up it gets so much harder for the remaining ones to raise money.
It's a special case, but in times like this I think about the antique cars. There are still Model T owners out there driving around with oil-soaked cotton brakes. That's the same material my pants are made out of. And it's not one brake per wheel, it's one brake for the entire car! Also, the wheels are made from wood.
The locomotion thing might not have been as obvious at the time as it is in hindsight.