HackerTubewatch
Surprise me
Frame from strandbeest evolution Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed

strandbeest evolution

theo jansen
Demos
YouTube
1 HN user recommended this demo1 month2016–2022 score 1
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026

HN links it in Strandbeest threads as a showcase of the eerily smooth, wind-driven walking creatures.

Theo Jansen shows many of his Strandbeests, wind-powered walking kinetic sculptures, set to Khachaturian's Spartacus. It presents his work since 1990 on creating new forms of life on beaches.

“eerily smooth, seemingly impossible walking exoskeletons” (HN, 2022)

1 recommendations · 2 citations · Demos

3 Hacker News comments

From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.

@papandada Jul 2022 Recommends
on HN thread Strandbeest: Kinetic PVC Beach Animals
I'd been watching a lot of visual effects content on YouTube and assumed that's what this was when it popped up on my feed, initially -- eerily smooth, seemingly impossible walking exoskeletons : [this video] Wikipedia page on a linkage the inventor uses for the legs: [link]
Eerily smooth walking wind-powered creatures that look like visual effects

Citations, criticism and jokes

@YeGoblynQueenne Jun 2016 Cites it
on HN thread Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose
Read more
>> “give me a big enough computer and the relevant initial conditions, and I’ll simulate the brain atom-by-atom.” Nuh-huh. You can't keep blaming it all on the hardware. Every year there's bigger and bigger computers and more and more people who claim they'll do better next year, when there's bigger computers. Well, it just ain't gonna happen. Fascinating intelligence that eats our most powerful artificial one for breakfast is all around us, and it runs on as little as five ganglia. Look at insects. They don't even have brains. They may not know calculus, they may be completely incapable of even acquiring the concept of a mathematical operation, but they are autonomous and viable in a harsh, hostile world that the most powerful machines we've built are completely incapable of inhabiting. If recreating insect-level intelligence artificially was just a matter of computing power, we 'd have done it already: we got more than enough of it. Five ganglia? My calculator is more powerful than that! But we don't have a single machine that can do what the lowliest fruit fly can do: survive on its own, and thrive, in the real world [1]. So- why is human-level intelligence just a matter of more computing power, but insect-level one is not? Is there some kind of secret ingredient? Is there some kind of magic involved? Will some sort of -gasp- singularity occur when the number of gates on a processor reaches a critical mass? Will the machine suddenly acquire a S.O.U.L. [2] when we stuff eno

Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.

Keyboard shortcuts

/
Search
j k
Next / previous video
r
Surprise me
l
Like (video page)
w
Watch later (video page)
?
This help
Esc
Close