Today's Wisdom - Gunpowder, Judges and Nintendo

Welcome back to A Little Wiser. B.B. King famously said, “The beautiful thing about learning is that no one can take it away from you.” With that in mind, today’s wisdom explores:

Grab your coffee and let’s dive in.

Sometime in the 9th century, a group of Taoist alchemists in Tang Dynasty China made one of the most consequential accidental discoveries in human history. Their goal was the elixir of immortality, a substance they believed could be unlocked by combining purified minerals in the right proportions. Working with saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal, they exposed the mixture to an open flame and watched their furnace explode. The formula they had stumbled upon, roughly 75 parts saltpeter to 15 parts sulfur to 10 parts charcoal, produced a violent, fast-burning reaction that had nothing to do with eternal life. They recorded it in Taoist texts as a warning, labeling the substance huo yao, meaning "fire medicine," and cautioning future alchemists against combining those particular ingredients. The military applications were identified almost immediately anyway, and within a century the Chinese army was deploying fire arrows, incendiary bombs, and early flamethrowers.

The weaponization accelerated dramatically under the Song Dynasty, which faced sustained military pressure from nomadic peoples to the north. By the 13th century, Chinese forces were using multi-stage rockets, exploding shells, and the fire lance, a spear fitted with a tube of gunpowder that produced a burst of flame, widely considered the earliest ancestor of the firearm. When the Mongols invaded China in the 1200s, they encountered thunderclap bombs at the siege of Kaifeng in 1232 and absorbed both the technology and the engineers who built it. As the Mongol Empire expanded westward across Central Asia and into the Middle East, it carried gunpowder with it, functioning as an enormous and violent conveyor belt for one of the most transformative technologies ever developed. Polish and Hungarian sources record Mongol forces using gunpowder explosives at the battles of Legnica and Mohi in 1241. Islamic chemists, far from passive recipients, refined the purification of saltpeter and improved the quality of the formulas they received. The oldest surviving written European record of gunpowder appears in the Opus Majus, a 1267 treatise by the English friar Roger Bacon, who understood its dangers well enough to encrypt the formula as an anagram to prevent it from spreading too quickly.

What followed reshaped the political map of the world. Castles that had made feudal lords nearly impregnable for centuries became vulnerable once cannon fire could bring down stone walls that no previous army could breach. The Ottoman Empire used massed artillery to end the Byzantine Empire at Constantinople in 1453. Gunpowder empires, the Ottomans, Safavids, and Mughals, rose to dominance across the Islamic world through mastery of firearms and field artillery, and European colonial expansion across the Americas, Africa, and Asia in the following centuries would have been unthinkable without it. China's alchemists had been searching for a way to escape death, and they produced instead the most efficient means of delivering it that the ancient world had ever seen.

Most people assume that judges simply read the law and apply it to the facts in front of them. The reality is considerably more complicated, and the philosophical framework a judge brings to the bench shapes outcomes in ways that determine the actual rights people hold in their daily lives. The central question is deceptively simple: when the Constitution uses a phrase like "cruel and unusual punishment" or "due process of law," what does that phrase mean, and who gets to decide? The document was written in 1787 by men who could not have anticipated the internet, modern firearms, or reproductive medicine, and its language was deliberately broad. Two judges reading the same sentence in good faith can arrive at completely opposite conclusions, and the method they use to bridge the gap between 18th-century text and a 21st-century dispute is one of the most consequential choices in American public life.

The two dominant philosophies are originalism and living constitutionalism, and they represent genuinely opposed views about what law is for. Originalists, most famously Justice Antonin Scalia, argue that the Constitution means what it meant when it was written, and that a judge's job is to apply that fixed meaning rather than update it. Within originalism, textualists focus strictly on the plain meaning of the words as a reasonable person would have understood them at the time of ratification, while others look more broadly at the intentions of the framers. Scalia's argument for this approach was largely democratic: if the Constitution's meaning can shift with the times, then unelected judges are effectively writing new law without any accountability to the public, which undermines the legislative process entirely. Living constitutionalists counter that phrases like "equal protection" and "liberty" were written broadly on purpose, because the framers understood that society changes in ways they could not predict. Under this view, the Supreme Court's recognition in 1954 that racial segregation in schools violated the Constitution was an appropriate evolution of the document's meaning, not a distortion of it.

The stakes of this debate are not theoretical. Roe v. Wade in 1973 found a constitutional right to abortion by reading the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of liberty to encompass personal autonomy, a conclusion rooted in living constitutionalism. When the Supreme Court overturned that decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in 2022, Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion reached the opposite result using originalist reasoning, arguing that no such right existed because it was not deeply rooted in the nation's history at the time the amendment was ratified. The same constitutional text, the same amendment, produced opposite outcomes depending entirely on the interpretive method applied. This is why Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominees have become some of the most politically charged events in American public life. The nominee's judicial philosophy effectively determines which rights exist and which do not, making the appointment of a single judge a decision with consequences that can outlast the presidency that made it.

Nintendo's origin has nothing to do with video games. In 1889, a craftsman named Fusajiro Yamauchi founded the company in Kyoto to manufacture Hanafuda cards, a traditional Japanese card game made by hand from the bark of the mulberry tree. Western-style playing cards with numerical symbols had been banned by the Japanese government for their association with gambling, but Hanafuda cards, decorated with flowers and illustrations rather than numbers, slipped through that restriction. Yamauchi's cards developed a reputation for exceptional quality and the company became the largest playing card manufacturer in Japan, eventually striking a licensing deal with Disney in 1959 to print characters on their decks, selling over 600,000 packs in the first year alone. The company's name is widely said to translate as "leave luck to heaven," an apt description for a business that would spend the next century repeatedly gambling its entire future on a single product.

The transformation into a toy and electronics company came in the 1960s under Hiroshi Yamauchi, Fusajiro's great-grandson, who had taken control of the company at 22 after its previous president suffered a stroke. Yamauchi had visited the United States to meet with the country's largest playing card manufacturers and was so struck by how small and unambitious their offices were that he decided the playing card business had no future. He pivoted Nintendo into toys, and then into electronics. A factory engineer named Gunpei Yokoi, whom Yamauchi spotted amusing himself on a break with a self-built extendable claw, was promptly reassigned to develop it into a marketable product. The Ultra Hand, as it was named, sold 1.2 million units. After a disastrous attempt to break into the arcade market with a game called Radar Scope, which left Nintendo of America with thousands of unsold units and teetering on the edge of financial collapse, Yamauchi assigned the problem to a young designer named Shigeru Miyamoto who had never built a game before. What Miyamoto produced in 1981 was Donkey Kong, introducing a character called Jumpman who would eventually be renamed Mario, and generating over $180 million in quarters in North American arcades within its first year.

When the North American video game market crashed catastrophically in 1983, wiping out Atari and sending dozens of developers into bankruptcy, Nintendo launched the Family Computer in Japan and then brought it to North America in 1985 under the deliberately neutral name Nintendo Entertainment System. The NES revived the entire industry. The Game Boy, released in 1989, went on to sell over 100 million units, becoming one of the best-selling consumer electronics products in history. What the full arc of Nintendo's story makes plain is that the company's greatest skill has never been technology. Sony and Sega consistently outpaced Nintendo on raw hardware power. What Nintendo has done with unusual consistency across 135 years is recognize that the quality of an experience matters more than the sophistication of the machine delivering it.

We hope you enjoyed today’s edition! If you did, feel free to share it on social media or forward this email to friends.

Until next time... A Little Wiser Team