Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 14:45:35 UTC No. 16221946

>>16221937
But it isn't stagnant since 70's

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 14:48:54 UTC No. 16221948

>>16221937
As someone having been born in 1975, I can guarantee you it has not been stagnant whatsoever, lol.
Some tech led to dead-ends for one reason or another, when it seemed lie it would keep going, that's all.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 14:55:22 UTC No. 16221956

>>16221946
more or less. in its impact. Think about it, tonight the highlight of my yesterday was going to the theatre.
The theatre going experience is not fundamentally different than it was in the 70s, besides the movies being worse and analog films looking better than digital films.

I rode there on a vehicle that used gas and that can conveniently take me from point A to point B, it had less horsepower than the ones today but more or less it doesn't matter.
I took my Asthma medication which was invented in the 60s, had a headache so I took a pill of a 100 year old medication known as paracetamol.
Tomorrow I am gonna catch a flight on a 747, In my Tuxedo suit that I bought for cheap thanks to textile manufacturing.

Things aren't 100% stagnant but more or less, life did not change that much, if you compare to the 90s it changed even less.

It's like the inverse of that C.S Lewis quote.

Isn’t it funny how day by day everything changes, but when we look back everything is the same.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 15:00:16 UTC No. 16221963

>>16221937
Not all progress has to be technological. We have diversity, multiculturalism, and equity. Those are societal advancements that needed progress, which we are still working on perfecting.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 15:02:21 UTC No. 16221968

>>16221963
You niggas got jokes!

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 15:02:37 UTC No. 16221970

>>16221937
>more or less stagnant since the 70s?
You might have noticed that since then we've invented the Internet basically from scratch like three times.
>And totally stagnant for the last 10 years.
I just said good morning to my computer and she said hi back and asked me how I was getting over my cold. We're living in a sci-fi future here.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 15:05:52 UTC No. 16221974

>>16221956
>Think about it, tonight the highlight of my yesterday was going to the theatre.
You're just a boomer. The highlight of *my* night was watching a 4K blu ray on my giant OLED TV with surround speakers in the comfort of my home.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 15:10:01 UTC No. 16221984

>>16221974
You're too low I.Q for this conversation. But let me indulge you, that's just convenience, that's part of the "more or less".
but we had 4K tvs with surround systems 10 years ago. We are also hitting the levels of convenice and ever regressing making shit more obtuse and less convenient because we have no new things to innovate.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 15:11:44 UTC No. 16221985

>>16221984
>levels of convenice
*limits of convenience

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 15:16:00 UTC No. 16221992

>>16221984
And by the way the best headphones speakers you can get today (for the price) are Sony MDR- from the early 90s 30+years ago. Those are the ones that Joe Rogan uses

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 15:21:40 UTC No. 16222008

>>16221956
>Medicine, Cars, ect
If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Technology isn't stagnant at all you just don't keep up with it.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 15:24:52 UTC No. 16222022

>>16221937
Theres probably been some innovation in the fields of chemistry, biology too. No? Nothing flashy.
>>16221948
The greatest advances have been in electronics, which links with everything else through interfaces.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 15:31:22 UTC No. 16222045

>>16222022
>innovation in the fields of chemistry, biology too
Nah, they are the same as everyone else. Just squeezing 10% more efficiency out of some obscure industrial process.
We are hitting diminishing returns in all areas of science and technology.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 21:04:38 UTC No. 16222820

>>16221948
>As someone having been born in 1975, I can guarantee you it has not been stagnant whatsoever, lol.
Go on? Meanwhile:
https://wiki.installgentoo.com/wiki/Stagnation

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 21:10:51 UTC No. 16222833

>>16221937
>What are the implications of technology being more or less stagnant since the 70s?
It means the Western civilisation is entering a decline that most people will not notice before the fall - just like in Rome.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 21:22:08 UTC No. 16222861

>>16221937
i wonder if the technology we grew to love was only a short histroical trend. in the 1900s kings still existed and your average peasant didnt even have a shitter. in the 20th century we saw a great century of technological, cultural, and politiical upheaval. in their lives our great-great-grandparents went from using horses and wood houses, to internal gasoline engines and buldings constructed out of synthetic polymer. they would believe that this progress would be constant. we may just be not in those times anymore. the era of extreme technological progress is over. your average normie is more concerned with social and political change which is a hubris that wont change anything. we dont live in the 19th and 20th centuies anymore, unfortunately. welcome to the fold-world shall everything decline...

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 21:22:19 UTC No. 16222862

>>16221937
what kind of new technology do you have in mind ?

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 21:25:11 UTC No. 16222868

>>16221937
it's not stagnant, but the public will for big projects is too little and/or the corruption is too much with no one to hold them accountable. we could be sending that money to africa/israel/poor blacks/poor spics/etc.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 21:31:33 UTC No. 16222885

Read "The End of Science". Just as the last corners of the earth have been mapped out, the last conceivable fields of the natural sciences have already been tread.
In Spenglerian terms, faustian man has perfected his form, but thus made himself obsolete.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 21:37:33 UTC No. 16222902

>>16222862
There are none. Fundamentally, what we're doing right now, what we've mastered is the best you could hope to do.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 22:24:29 UTC No. 16223000

>>16221956
I use my smartphone everyday. A technology made in 2007. A technology that is relevant for work, entertainment, communication etc, AND that keeps improving. They are starting to implement AI on phones now, another recent relevant tech advancement.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:24:49 UTC No. 16223390

>>16221984
>You're too low I.Q for this conversation.
wat
>counterexamples equals low iq
kek
You're the one who brought up movie watching technology you clown.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:13:29 UTC No. 16223610

>>16221937
Trains are one of things that are still improving. I think they actually even took over computers in this regard, only not in America.
But as discussed below, it's mostly all the same things, only a bit more polished (like not even figurately, but materially) but otherwise functionally identical, often with some nasty bloat that actually makes them much worse.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:15:57 UTC No. 16223613

OP is incredibly stupid and or 50 years old and lived with chronic pain due to age, which has made him bitter and resentful

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:20:52 UTC No. 16223621

>>16221992
Even cheap USB speakers are going to be better than almost anything made in the 90s except fof some really good headphones because of the DSPs.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:23:14 UTC No. 16223624

>>16221937
What absolute fucking horseshit. How willfully oblivious do you have to be to believe there hasn't been a single technological breakthrough in 50 years.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:38:35 UTC No. 16223648

>>16223624
So what were those breakthroughs?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:07:05 UTC No. 16223689

>>16221956
You are conflating other things with tech. Theater used to only be live and in person and within earshot of the stage, then they had PA’s to reach the balcony, then they added film, now we have 4k iPads with on demand entertainment…it was always entertainment, even well before the 70’s, and it always will be something similar…the tech improved significantly though and will likely continue to do so.

2000 years ago they had 1hp horses for transportation as well as ships and carts, same concept as your car or an 18 wheeler, it just got extra horsepowers and also became locomotives and planes…the tech improved significantly and will likely continue to do so.

The CS Lewis quote is spot on, horses changed to cars but in the long run they are both just personal transports

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:24:51 UTC No. 16223725

>>16223689
The change from the 1920's to the 70's was overwhelmingly massive in comparison.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:26:22 UTC No. 16223727

>>16221956
>>16223689
What CS Lewis quote?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:01:48 UTC No. 16223874

>>16223648
>Personal computers
>The internet
>Fiber optics
>Cellular phones
>GPS
>IEEE 802
>Machine learning
>Additive manufacturing
>Cold atmospheric plasma jets
>Plasma processing
>High precision photolithography
>Graphene
>Carbon nanotubes
>High temperature superconductors
>Lithium ion batteries
>Hydrogen fuel cells
>Electronic vehicle ignition
>Fuel injectors
>Blue LEDs
>UV LEDs
>Scanning tunneling microscope
>CCD and CMOS imaging
>MRI imaging
>CT scanning
>Artificial organs
>Laparoscopic surgery
>Gene sequencing
>CRISPR
to name a few

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:18:00 UTC No. 16224218

This is what state of the art stagnation look slike:
https://archive.is/Ehlag
>F-35 fighter jets can only fly 55% of time, US watchdog says
>Report on military’s $160mn combat aircraft comes days after one crashed in South Carolina
In a WWIII we would have to rely on a 50 year old F-16 to carry us through while the tarmac queens will sit it out on the ground.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:38:35 UTC No. 16224236

>>16223874
>>Personal computers
Apple 2 is 50 years old and there were microcomputers before that that were pesonal, like KIM-1
>>The internet
Started in the 60s which is more tan 50 years ago.
>>Fiber optics
Nearly 100 years old, though steadily improved, which is mroe of evolution.
>>Cellular phones
An evolution of radios which agani are 100+ years old.
>>GPS
Started early 70s, evolved from Transit which as from the 60s
>>IEEE 802
Started in 1973, and you can draw the lines back to telegraphy lines more athn 150 years ago.
>>Machine learning
Started 1943. Did you even bother checking anything of your claims!?
>>Additive manufacturing
Hot glue. Big deal
>>Cold atmospheric plasma jets
Need more details before I can hammer this nail down
>>Plasma processing
Plasma was know 100+ years ago, what processing do you have in mind?
>>High precision photolithography
just evolution of photolithography which was in common use in the early 70s, when 6502 was made at a 3 um node.
>>Graphene
>>Carbon nanotubes
New
>>High temperature superconductors
Discovered in 1986 but applications are still thin on the ground and RnD is mostly dead.
>>Lithium ion batteries
An evolution of electrochemistry which is way old. Admittedly, electrochemistry has had a bad reputation but it is still old.
>>Hydrogen fuel cells
Used in the Apollo project more than 50 years ago
>>Electronic vehicle ignition
From 1968
>>Fuel injectors
Patent issued in 1903. Really.
>>Blue LEDs
>>UV LEDs
New
>>Scanning tunneling microscope
New. 1981 scrapes by
>>CCD and CMOS imaging
Later 60s and ealy 70s so old. CMOS is a semiconductor so that is an evolution of even older tech.
>>MRI imaging
Early 70s.
>>CT scanning
1971
>>Artificial organs
Artificial kidney from 1946
>>Laparoscopic surgery
1901 on dogs, 1910 on humans.
>>Gene sequencing
1972
>>CRISPR
New

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:40:09 UTC No. 16224237

>>16223689
>the tech improved significantly though and will likely continue to do so.
no not really. There's a concept of good enough. Tvs in 2014 were much better than they were in2004, but in 2024 tv's aren't any better because there's really not much to do anymore, you don't need better than 4k.
And high audio fidelity audio surround system, you could buy even back in the 90s.

>the tech improved significantly and will likely continue to do so.
The 747 came out in 1970, 54 years ago. 54 years before the 747, was 1916. We had WWI paper mache planes. We are still using the 747 today.


same applies the internet. no body really need more than 1 Gbps fiber internet. And iPhones could have stopped 5 or even 6 generations ago.

🗑️ B4RK0N (300 IQ) 'kneel' at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:41:31 UTC No. 16224240

>>16224237
Poo for poo

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:45:57 UTC No. 16224247

>>16224236
Nice work.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:46:54 UTC No. 16224250

>>16224236
>>>Cellular phones
>An evolution of radios which agani are 100+ years old.
Lmao, trolling has gotten lazy.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:47:46 UTC No. 16224251

>>16224236
>>>Graphene
>>>Carbon nanotubes
>New

Graphene is a meme material that was pushed hard by pop-sci snoyboys as the miracle material, only to disappear without trace.

Don't know much about nanotubes but they definitely didn't revolutionize the world as say Plastic did.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:49:43 UTC No. 16224255

>>16224250
If you take a course in communication, they teach about AM and FM, some 100 year old technologies.
That were already near perfect with high audio fidelity by the time WWII was going on. Cellular phones were just the same principle but with a battery.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:57:33 UTC No. 16224258

/sci/ is really trying to gaslight me into believing technology hasn't improved in the last 50 years!

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 12:12:50 UTC No. 16224266

>>16224251
>Graphene is a meme material that was pushed hard by pop-sci snoyboys as the miracle material, only to disappear without trace.
Yes, still mostly confined to research labs with long budgets. There was some talk of doped graphene or graphene variants that were supoercnducting but there is not much news these days.
>Don't know much about nanotubes but they definitely didn't revolutionize the world as say Plastic did.
Nanotubes and fullerenes can be found in candle light smoke so are not new, people just didn't look too deeply into the mass spectroscopes for that weird C60 thing. Fullerenes were a hot topic as high temperature superconductors hit the peak and started declining, offering a leaky lifeboat to tens of thousands of freshly minted PhDs and postdocs around 1990.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 12:14:12 UTC No. 16224267

>>16224258
And /sci/ also has sources: >>16222820
You may also want to check out
https://wiki.installgentoo.com/wiki/Knowledge_Event_Horizon

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 12:35:01 UTC No. 16224279

>>16224267
AGI will solve this

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 12:37:15 UTC No. 16224284

>>16224279
Pipedream

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 12:40:16 UTC No. 16224287

>>16224284
At the very least we'll have more high quality art, right?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 12:45:10 UTC No. 16224292

>>16224267
the lack of self awareness is palpable

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:02:33 UTC No. 16224315

>>16221937
The problem is that we refuse to develop nuclear technology.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:09:09 UTC No. 16224329

>>16224315
Nuclear energy is a solution to our energy problems like EVs are a "solution" to "Climate Change".
But eve if we had developed our nuclear infrastructure it wouldn't be that much of a difference to society and way of life.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:14:36 UTC No. 16224337

>>16221956
Yesterday I played Warhammer 40k using 3D printed models that were created based on free files uploaded to the Internet. I have stopped using tobacco in favour of vaping, because I love nicotine but don't want to inhale tar. I've just finished using my phone for free satellite navigation that perfectly guides me along unfamiliar routes to get to anywhere I want to go. Are you old enough to remember having to navigate long car journeys with paper maps and careful reference to road signage?
I anonymously order psychedelic drugs on the dark Web using monero and get them delivered through my letterbox from halfway around the world. I don't have to risk contact with potentially dangerous or unsavoury individuals that hang around street corners.
I work remotely and have near-daily video conferences with teams spread across the country and instantly share reams of data which would have required physical postage of large volumes of paper, or a analogue facsmile printed by fax.
Just because YOUR day to day life isnt much changed by technological change, doesn't mean others aren't.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:16:17 UTC No. 16224338

https://archive.is/EYGyB
>"I don't know how some of these students are going to be junior doctors," the professor said. "Faculty are seeing a shocking decline in knowledge of medical students."

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:18:22 UTC No. 16224342

>>16222045
>Nah, they are the same as everyone else
Retard moment. Crispr and gene therapy, xenotransplantation with antigen-free organs, etc. It took nearly 20 years to decode the first human genome. We've now got full genome for thousands of species and millions of individual people. Biotechnology has gone through multiple paradigm shifts and revolutions in the last 20 years, but many of them have subtle, niche effects on people's lived experiences.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:20:26 UTC No. 16224348

>>16224337
>Yesterday I played Warhammer 40k using 3D printed models that were created based on free files uploaded to the Internet.
In the 90s, you could have paid a professional to make a much more high quality one and you wouldn't have bullshit like female custodians so you wouldn't even need to do this in the first place.
Also
>Warhammer 40K
opinion discarded.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:22:54 UTC No. 16224354

>>16222902
>>16222885
Science at the End of the Century A hundred years ago, as the nineteenth century drew to a close, scientists around the world were satisfied that they had arrived at an accurate picture of the physical world. As physicist Alastair Rae put it, "By the end of the nineteenth century it seemed that the basic fundamental principles governing the behavior of the physical universe were known."* Indeed, many scientists said that the study of physics was nearly completed: no big discoveries remained to be made, only details and finishing touches. But late in the final decade, a few curiosities came to light. Roentgen discovered rays that passed through flesh; because they were unexplained, he called them X rays. Two months later, Henri Becquerel accidentally found that a piece of uranium ore emitted something that fogged photographic plates. And the electron, the carrier of electricity, was discovered in 1897. Yet on the whole, physicists remained calm, expecting that these oddities would eventually be explained by existing theory. No one would have predicted that within five years their complacent view of the world would be shockingly upended, producing an entirely new conception of the universe and entirely new technologies that would transform daily life in the twentieth century in unimaginable ways.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:24:16 UTC No. 16224360

>>16224354
If you were to say to a physicist in 1899 that in 1999, a hundred years later, moving images would be transmitted into homes all over the world from satellites in the sky; that bombs of unimaginable power would threaten the species; that antibiotics would abolish infectious disease but that disease would fight back; that women would have the vote, and pills to control reproduction; that millions of people would take to the air every hour in aircraft capable of taking off and landing without human touch; that you could cross the Atlantic at two thousand miles an hour; that humankind would travel to the moon, and then lose interest; that microscopes would be able to see individual atoms; that people would carry telephones weighing a few ounces, and speak anywhere in the world without wires; or that most of these miracles depended on devices the size of a postage stamp, which utilized a new theory called quantum mechanics - if you said all this, the physicist would almost certainly pronounce you mad. Most of these developments could not have been predicted in 1899, because prevailing scientific theory said they were impossible. And for the few developments that were not impossible, such as airplanes, the sheer scale of their eventual use would have defied comprehension. One might have imagined an airplane - but ten thousand airplanes in the air at the same time would have been beyond imagining.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:25:36 UTC No. 16224364

>>16224360
Now that we stand on the threshold of the twenty-first century, the situation is oddly similar. Once again, physicists believe the physical world has been explained, and that no further revolutions lie ahead. Because of prior history, they no longer express this view publicly, but they think it just the same. Some observers have even gone so far as to argue that science as a discipline has finished its work; that there is nothing important left for science to discover. But just as the late nineteenth century gave hints of what was to come, so the late twentieth century also provides some clues to the future. One of the most important is the interest in so-called quantum technology. This is an effort on many fronts to create a new technology that utilizes the fundamental nature of subatomic reality, and it promises to revolutionize our ideas of what is possible.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:27:09 UTC No. 16224366

>>16224354
>>16224360
>>16224364
>https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/physics/lord-kelvin-and-the-end-of-physics-which-he-never-predicted/

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:28:15 UTC No. 16224368

>>16224364
>e of the most important is the interest in so-called quantum technology. This is an effort on many fronts to create a new technology that utilizes the fundamental nature of subatomic reality, and it promises to revolutionize our ideas of what is possible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBLVtCYHVO8

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:34:54 UTC No. 16224380

>>16224366
>But although it is fair to exempt Kelvin from a mistake that does not belong to him, this does not mean that his predictions were always inspired. Because as extraordinary as having declared the end of physics, was his blunder in 1902 when he said the following in a press interview about the future of aeronautics: “Neither the balloon, nor the aeroplane, nor the gliding machine will be a practical success”

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:39:48 UTC No. 16224387

>>16224337
Once again it is time to bring the hammer down.

>Yesterday I played Warhammer 40k using 3D printed models that were created based on free files uploaded to the Internet. I have stopped using tobacco in favour of vaping, because I love nicotine but don't want to inhale tar. I've just finished using my phone for free satellite navigation that perfectly guides me along unfamiliar routes to get to anywhere I want to go.
Sorry, are we supposed to be impressed by technological revolution?
>Are you old enough to remember having to navigate long car journeys with paper maps and careful reference to road signage?
Yes, I am. I also learned to navigate by the stars, which has come in handy several times when power went out.
>I anonymously order psychedelic drugs on the dark Web using monero and get them delivered through my letterbox from halfway around the world. I don't have to risk contact with potentially dangerous or unsavoury individuals that hang around street corners.
Now that explains a lot.
>I work remotely and have near-daily video conferences
1930s tech.
>with teams spread across the country and instantly share reams of data which would have required physical postage of large volumes of paper, or a analogue facsmile printed by fax.
File transfer was well known with UUCP from the 70s.
>Just because YOUR day to day life isnt much changed by technological change, doesn't mean others aren't.
Way to miss the point. We have minor evolution, little if any major evolution or revolutions, but we sure have marketing that makes people thing warm poo in new wrappings is kind of cool. It is not.

Pic. related is from the 60s, and today F-35 has problems getting off the ground.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:44:11 UTC No. 16224393

>>16224387
For me it's Nighthawk. You know it's bad when 80s tech looks more sci-fi than current tech.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:54:33 UTC No. 16224410

>>16224255
>If you take a course in cars, they teach about the wheel, an invention of the 4th millenium BC. They were already near perfect with high roundedness by the time Jesus was going on. Cars were just the same principle but with a battery/engine.

>>16224337
/thread

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:55:25 UTC No. 16224413

>>16224236
so if tomorrow new groundbreaking treatment to completely cure cancer are discovered, you'll say nah people have been treating cancers for centuries ? you people need to stop argue on the internet and do something concrete with your time instead

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:55:50 UTC No. 16224416

>>16224393
F-19 looked better.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:56:58 UTC No. 16224418

>>16224236
Tyndall demonstrating total internal refraction with a single strand of bent glass in the 1870s is not the same as the use of fiber optic cables to relay digital information transcoded into modulated pulses of light across thousands of miles

Pitts, McCulloch, and Turing conceiving of the theoretical idea of a machine neural network in the 40s is not the same as the modern practical implementation of machine learning algorithms.

CAP jets use high frequency, high voltage discharges to produce plasmas at atmospheric pressure, allowing them to interact with biological materials. Plasma agriculture and plasma medicine are emergent subfields in plasma physics, and CAP jets

The first recognition that plasmas could actively affect materials they come in contact with dates wasn't even until the mid-50s, and the first practical application of plasmas to aid in device fabrication wasn't until the late 70s and early 80s. Virtually all modern devices undergo one or more steps of cleaning, etching, treating, or other processing.

Using hot glue to stick two popsicle sticks together and modern plastic or metal-based 3D printers are not equivalent.

You're just going out of your way to disregard or find loopholes for anything that contradicts your retarded theory that there hasn't been a single technological breakthrough in half a century. If cell phones are discounted for being an 'evolution of the radio' and internet communication is discounted because it's an 'evolution of the telegraph' you may as well just claim there's been no technological breakthroughs in the history of our species; every idea has to, by necessity, build off of what has come before. The NIF successfully carried out a break-even inertial fusion reaction two years ago, but it doesn't matter because some faggot ape in a cave discovered fire two million years ago so I guess we've been stagnant for eons.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:58:22 UTC No. 16224422

>>16224418
*and CAP jets have already started to be used in decontamination of produce and medical instruments

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:58:27 UTC No. 16224424

>>16224413
>If we are very hopeful, cancer might be cured but that's about it, life will not fundamentally change.

It will be great but you know? life would still be the same. dying of cancer, dying of old age what difference does it make.

If we don't get a genuine technological revolution that fulfills our sci-fi dreams, life would have been useless anyway and we might as well die.

All that struggle in human history, all the broken spirits and hearts for people to do tik-tok dances and for life to be emptier than ever. Sisyphus had had enough!

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:59:25 UTC No. 16224426

>>16224424
>It will be great but you know? life would still be the same. dying of cancer, dying of old age what difference does it make
the difference is that cancer happens in people of all ages you idiot

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:00:45 UTC No. 16224428

>>16224426
But like it's rare unless you're very old age. If my luck is that bad, I might as well bite the bullet.

I worry about it in my day to day as much as I worry about getting hit by a car.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:03:54 UTC No. 16224435

>>16224416
looks like a dead rat

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:14:20 UTC No. 16224452

>>16224428
you sound like you can't appreciate what you have, you take everything for granted even though you probably have more than 99,99% of humanity ever had, that way of thinking and you'll never be satisfied with anything. You'll just fantasize about things you see in fiction.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:21:42 UTC No. 16224461

>>16224452
Well that's 99% of people, technology (current ones) have failed to give meaning to our lives, and one could moreover argue it fucked over human interaction irreparably (social media, e-whores, relationships, brain-rot, worthless tech economy, most people can't afford to start families)
And there's nothing on the horizon that suggests it might reignite the human spirit and give value. Like we were promised the stars and I don't know if that was a foolish dream to begin with or if it has objective value but at times it was interesting to think about and indulge.

It's not bad, I appreciate all the comfort of modern life but I wouldn't do it again and besides

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:31:58 UTC No. 16224475

>>16221937
This post is 100% correct. I believe the technological stagnation has something to do with removing the gold standard and government bringing about socialised capitalism as a result. Government hands a blank check to scientific research with no accountability this makes everyone lazy and unmotivated. Aslo brings the wrong type of people into science which want money and prestige when science is about discovery.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:32:46 UTC No. 16224478

>>16224475
>This post is 100% correct.
Read the thread.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:34:47 UTC No. 16224480

>>16224475
>with no accountability this makes everyone lazy and unmotivated

Motivated smart people still exist. We're just hitting fundamental limits of what ingenuity can do.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:45:16 UTC No. 16224494

>>16224475
>This post is 100% correct.
I mean, if you close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and go "la, la, la, I can't hear you! technology has stagnated since the 1950's! la, la, la! I'm not listening!" sure, I guess, but that'd be pretty fucking stupid.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:46:17 UTC No. 16224497

Turns out the Great Filter is Dennard Scaling

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:49:55 UTC No. 16224500

>>16224475
We are long past the point where you could attach a condenser to your steam engine to double its output while halving its fuel consumption.

Diminishing marginal returns are real.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:52:41 UTC No. 16224504

>>16224500
>Diminishing marginal returns are real.
>posts figure that shows continued exponential growth

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:57:48 UTC No. 16224520

The fact that we are as far way from the 1970s. Too how far the 70s are to the 1910s really does show that this period of extreme rapid technology growth has come to its end. I mean sure things look at bit fancy. But it feels more like a new paint then something actual real and fundamentally life changing. I mean for most of history technology was stagnant. This period form the 1800s to the 60s of extremely fast growth of technology is the only one of its kind in history basically.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:01:44 UTC No. 16224524

>>16224520
Exactly. Apollo wasn't the teaser of things to come. It was the climax of human history.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:02:50 UTC No. 16224526

>>16224480
>Motivated smart people still exist. We're just hitting fundamental limits of what ingenuity can do


I don’t believe this. Before air conditioning the Middle East societies had unidirectional wind catchers that would be able to cool buildings with little wind speed to a temperature of 70 degrees IN THE DESERT!!!

Human creativity knows no bounds. Necessity is the mothee of invention. The Roman’s knew wealth brings decadence. United States is a victim of its own success. Printing money doesn’t motivate people. What drives people? Fear, competition, boredom, a need. If I’m wealthy and have everything what motivates me to do more?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:07:30 UTC No. 16224536

>>16224526
Nah, the problem really is a fundamental limit on what ingenuity can do. We discovered all there's to discover, and built all the convenience we need. We can't even think of any way to make life more comfortable or convenient if we tried.

Same reason why Music has gone stale over the last 20 years. Fundamental limits of creativity, we did all the cool things that could be done in music.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:13:29 UTC No. 16224549

>>16224461
technology isn't meant to give your life meaning, it's there to help everyone get a fair chance to realize their goals, without struggling against famine, against disease, against disasters and so on.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:14:28 UTC No. 16224552

>>16224524
I would probably not say it is the climax of all of human history. But we probably have to wait over a thousand years to surpass and it like with the fall of the roman empire. Then we will become a multi planet species controlling our star.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:15:11 UTC No. 16224554

>>16224418
>modern practical implementation
And that is my point: we see a long, slow evolution and no major leaps.

>>16224418
>You're just going out of your way to disregard or find loopholes for anything that contradicts your retarded theory that there hasn't been a single technological breakthrough in half a century.
That is a mistake. Graphene was new and I wrote as much. My point is that too many talk about major new development that was neitehr new not major.
>If cell phones are discounted for being an 'evolution of the radio' and internet communication is discounted because it's an 'evolution of the telegraph' you may as well just claim there's been no technological breakthroughs in the history of our species;
Again wrong. You need to see the difference between revolution and evolution, and slow vs. fast development.
And the Stagnation artcile makes that clear: Wright brothers to Blackbird was about 60 years, and after another 60 years the state of the art is a dog of an aircraft.
Processors used to go through major speed increases, from 1 MHz in the 70s to 3 GHz which is now the stagnation plateau. I use a computer from 2015 and there are few compelling reasons to buy a new one. Before that, computers evolved so fast you needed a regular hardware refresh. No so anymore.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:15:49 UTC No. 16224556

>>16224549
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR2tIyj8_y8

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:17:51 UTC No. 16224561

>>16224554
>I use a computer from 2015 and there are few compelling reasons to buy a new one

It's good enough. You can send 4k video anywhere you want in the world in an instant. What more do you need?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:17:56 UTC No. 16224563

>>16224536
Humanity and species on this earth are not designed to be comfortable. If you study biology we know nature is in a competitive arms race with its self.

Look up mimicry in evolutionary biology. The adversarial nature of species against each other is what spawns natures creativity

Which is why adversarial AI can make pictures of people who do not exist.

I challenge you to explore and learn REAL SCIENCE!!!!

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:19:35 UTC No. 16224567

>>16224563
That's the paradox of dialectic materialism, we want to work hard to be comfortable but comfort leads us to stagnation.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:22:16 UTC No. 16224572

>>16224413
>so if tomorrow new groundbreaking treatment to completely cure cancer are discovered, you'll say nah people have been treating cancers for centuries ?
No. To the contrary, any groundbreaking treatment is cause for celebration. What we instead have, is an endless eries of retractions. And it took 15+ years to get the AB*56 paper killed off.
>you people need to stop argue on the internet and do something concrete with your time instead
Oh I do. I am not posting here for a living.
I used to do research, I have seen the rot from the inside. That is why I am feeling strongly about this issue. Imagine, if you will, if progress 1900 - 1960 had progressed at the same speed the next 60 years. It would have been a very different world. One of my lecturers got his start in the US space race, and told us what it was like. That era is now dead. Instead we have telephone sanitizers telling us how nice the new wrapping is.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:28:28 UTC No. 16224586

>>16224572
>AB*56
lol

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:29:06 UTC No. 16224590

>>16224572
> I used to do research.

Any smart person knows that learning never ends as it’s impossible to know everything. Now go read before I slap the shit out of you

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:52:29 UTC No. 16224817

>>16221937
Cancer is not getting cured. There’s zero push to cure it.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:05:46 UTC No. 16224842

>>16224354
>>16224360
>>16224364
Not at all like that. It seems that science will have to be rolled back to that point, as it appears to be built on a delusion.
>>16224410
No idea why you're mocking it. FM was already near perfect, digital radio was an obvious step back in quality.
>>16224480
>>16224536
>>16224526
Everything is getting stale because of retards who also wanted a smart person job, but can patch together pages and pages of incomprehensible nonsense, instead of producing valuable insights.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:40:19 UTC No. 16224926

>>16224842
>retards who also wanted a smart person job, but can patch together pages and pages of incomprehensible nonsense

People like this have existed forever, conmen, pseudointellectuals, crackpot engineers. But genuine good ideas and invention rose to the surface and were adopted.
That doesn't happen anymore because there are no more good ideas or inventions because of the fundamental limit if what ingenuity can do.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:18:03 UTC No. 16225043

>Will science ever reach an end?
https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/will-science-ever-reach-an-end/4019492.article
> Some years ago, science writer John Horgan published The End of Science, arguing that we were in fact in an era of diminishing returns. This did not go over well with a lot of people, and I recall being made rather angry and uncomfortable by the book’s ideas. But there’s a case to be made that in many research areas we are doing more and more work (and spending more and more money) while discovering things more slowly. In my own field of drug discovery, Jack Scannell published a famous paper on what he called ‘Eroom’s Law’ (a reversal of Moore’s Law, which observes that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit doubles about every two years), and pointed out that the drug industry was – over the years – constantly spending more R&D money just to keep the rate of drug approvals about where it had always been.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:26:44 UTC No. 16225057

Both logistic and exponential curves initially look the same, but of course they're very different.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:31:35 UTC No. 16225069

>>16225043
When was the last time they discovered a major drug? wasn't it Viagra by accident?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:02:07 UTC No. 16225133

>>16225069
>When was the last time they discovered a major drug?
Not sure but that was quite a while ago. Insulin recently turned 100.
wasn't it Viagra by accident?
Definitely. The intended purpose failed, while the, errr, secondary use was of course the success that spammed down a billion mailboxes. The entire drug process went off the rails from the beginning.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:10:34 UTC No. 16225155

>>16225133
>Insulin recently turned 100
Wow really puts things into perspective. Surely there must be really important drugs we use that these hundred billion dollar industries have been discovering for the last 40 years?
surely they can't be just repackaging 100 year old medication and selling it to us at exuberant prices?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:32:26 UTC No. 16225198

>>16225155
Not really anything substantial, but vanity drugs like accutane, ozempic and anything in between are pretty new. Funnily enough, both of the former medications try to remedy an essentially hereditary condition. Well see how that goes for ozempic

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:05:10 UTC No. 16225234

>>16225198
ozempic is vanity and viagra isn't ?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:19:14 UTC No. 16225254

>>16225198
billions of dollars of RnD over the last 30 years, surely there's more to it than just Ozempic.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:26:44 UTC No. 16225269

>>16225069
>>16225133
In terms of drugs some of the biggest of the last century are:
Insulin was in 1923
Penicillin in 1928
Cortisone in 1935
Warfarin in 1940
Lidocaine in 1943
Hydrocortisone in 1951
Ibuprofen in 1961
Ketamine in 1962
Diazepam in 1963
Amoxicillin in 1972
Naproxen in 1976
Sildenafil (Viagra) in 1989
Ropivacaine in 1998
Ivacaftor in 2012

This isn’t including any vaccines and I’m sure there’s like a billion antibiotics and antivirals that have come out over this time.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:28:57 UTC No. 16225278

>>16225254
Total progress in medication discovery has remained linear, while investment into the sector has, as you say, risen steadily. And yes, discovering disruptive medicines has indeed become rare, Im afraid. This is precisely because were becoming stuck with genetic diseases rather than acquired ones. Did you know that, in about half of all cancer cases, the onset of the disease couldn't be explained by environmental changes?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:29:33 UTC No. 16225279

>>16224536
>Kids these days
>Things aren’t like they used to be
>All the good technology and culture has already been done
>Kids these days
>Back in my day
Fucking Boomers

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:39:50 UTC No. 16225308

>>16225269
Where's Salbutamol?

Also what's the state of antibiotics. Are we still mostly using ones from the 70s? or is it important to keep cutting edge?
they keep fear mongering us about super bacteria but I don't know.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:45:40 UTC No. 16225317

>>16225155
>Wow really puts things into perspective. Surely there must be really important drugs we use that these hundred billion dollar industries have been discovering for the last 40 years?
Labs went from traditional drug discovery to simulations and computation 8called "in silico"), and it didn't give the results people had hoped for. Now we have AI drug discovery but as Derek Lowe points out the results are not impressive.
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/ai-drugs-so-far
>surely they can't be just repackaging 100 year old medication and selling it to us at exuberant prices?
The get a miniscule improvement, typically in delivery, get a patent and sell that for insane prices, making the old off-patent drugs inaccessible.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:50:23 UTC No. 16225329

>>16225308
IIRC a lot of the broad antibiotics are still the same ones from several decades ago - amoxicillin, penicillin, etc. but more targeted ones update every 5-10 years or so I think.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:02:58 UTC No. 16225363

>>16225317
>typically in delivery
What's this? does it have any real life consequences?
>>16225329
> more targeted ones
What are these, in what cases are they used? are they important?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:04:09 UTC No. 16225511

>>16221937
Dysgenics and government regulations.
E.g. nuclear power banned by regulations so energy isn't cheaper.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:26:15 UTC No. 16225582

>>16225363
Narrow band antibiotics target specific types of common bacteria, they’re used in situations where you know what an infection is being caused by and when the species responsible is weak against one of these narrow band antibiotics. So, for example, fidaxomicin pretty narrowly affects c. diff. and a few similar bacteria.

Broad spectrum antibiotics, like amoxicillin, are more like carpet-bombing and just take out everything. They’re necessary for situations where the specific infection is unknown (which is why they’re usually given before and after surgery), but they also tend to fuck up all the beneficial bacteria in your system as well (like in your digestive system) and overuse of broad spectrum antibiotics is believed to be a cause of the increase in antibiotic-resistant strains of diseases.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:29:28 UTC No. 16225594

>>16225511
It’s always the governments fault. Come up with a better argument then muh government

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:53:26 UTC No. 16225665

Perhaps people are confused. Most "modern" technologies are actually 50-70+ years old. The technology itself is really old, but it's just become more easily accessible to normal people, so people have access to electric dishwashers, fridges, etc. at a higher rate now.

The only real development that has happened is advances in chip production, drug development, and some other things.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 23:23:53 UTC No. 16225760

>>16225665
New things just sneak into everyday use instead of blasting their way into public consciousness. UV LEDs were only invented about a decade ago to very little fanfare, but now suddenly every hospital and airplane is using them for decon, people are buying thermoses with LED arrays, etc.

Same with a lot of things. We’re still getting technological developments, but our society is already so technology-heavy that the changes don’t register as much.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 23:31:37 UTC No. 16225772

>>16225760
>We’re still getting technological developments, but our society is already so technology-heavy that the changes don’t register as much.
Best take ITT

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 06:52:34 UTC No. 16226322

>>16222022
>greatest advances have been in electronics
Sure, but are those not advances?
And as you said "greatest". Much else advanced.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:00:02 UTC No. 16226328

>>16222820
You're not informing me of anything new, I've had this discussion quite a number of times in the last 25 years.
As a little boy growing up in the early 80s, I too expected then to there be concorde-type airplanes zipping about, maglev trains everywhere, rocket ships flying to the moon on a daily basis, while I commuted to work with my jetpack on my back, robots for friends, etc. That last one is already becoming true. Shit, I already have deep, technical and philosophical conversations with chatGTP and other bots on a daily basis. Right there, sci-fi became reality.
As far as everything else goes that didn't: well, as it turns out, there were technological, social, environmental, economical, and financial barriers to some of those ideas.
I'm not sure what it is that you were expecting, but miracles do not happen. Reality happens, and it checks our aspirations pretty hard sometimes. So is life.
No offense, but if you don't like progress, please get out of our way, thank you.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:36:14 UTC No. 16226430

>>16226328
>I'm not sure what it is that you were expecting, but miracles do not happen.
I had expected continuing progress, in some ways the staggnaiton was miracle of the entirely wrong kind.
>Reality happens, and it checks our aspirations pretty hard sometimes. So is life.
Getting to the moon "within the decade" was also reality.
>No offense, but if you don't like progress, please get out of our way, thank you.
Way to misunderstand. I like progress. I just don't like stagnation.

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:56:56 UTC No. 16226449

>>16226328
The thing hasn't been anything genuinely new, only gradual improvements, and attempts to milk old knowledge, which gets progressively harder.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:58:00 UTC No. 16226452

>>16226328
The thing is there hasn't been anything genuinely new, only gradual improvements, and attempts to milk old knowledge, which gets progressively harder.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:11:14 UTC No. 16226467

>>16226328
You've been bombarded with progress speeched all you life "The NEW iPhone" you've failed to step back and consider how little things has changed.

What is an iPhone but a camera and a music player? in the 90s you could have had a Walkman with high audio fidelity and a kodak camera taking high quality pictures. The iPhone is just a convenience

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:12:04 UTC No. 16226469

>>16221946
You got a device in your pocket that gives you instant access to nearly the entirety of mankind's knowledge, allows you to instantly communicate visually with nearly anyone in the world, and has more computing power than all the computers of the 1970's combined. "Stagnant" my ass.

The Internet fundamentally changed how we live and work, but by your measure, life hasn't changed much since 3000 BC. Sure, a car can get you further and faster than any horse can, but how often do you need to drive beyond the range of a horse or need to be there more quickly than a horse can take you there? Ergo technology has been stagnant since 3,000BC, and the Amish live as technically advanced as any of us.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:14:22 UTC No. 16226471

>>16221956
You got a device in your pocket that gives you instant access to nearly the entirety of mankind's knowledge, allows you to instantly communicate visually with nearly anyone in the world, takes higher resolution pictures than any camera of the 70's could, and has more computing power than all the computers of the 1970's combined. "Stagnant" my ass.

The Internet fundamentally changed how we live and work, but by your measure, life hasn't changed much since 3000 BC. Sure, a car can get you further and faster than any horse can, but how often do you need to drive beyond the range of a horse or need to be there more quickly than a horse can take you there? Ergo technology has been stagnant since 3,000BC, and the Amish live as technically advanced as any of us.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:21:16 UTC No. 16226488

>>16226471
>You got a device in your pocket that gives you instant access to nearly the entirety of mankind's knowledge
Wikipedia came out 20+ years ago before that we had public libraries, it's just a matter of convenience.
>allows you to instantly communicate visually with nearly anyone in the world
I was doing that with Skype 20 years ago.
>takes higher resolution pictures than any camera of the 70's could,
No, Analog cameras have higher quality than digital cameras. 35mm picture could be scanned at 8k resolution
>The Internet fundamentally changed how we live and work
negatively

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 09:59:54 UTC No. 16226528

>>16226488
I think the standard settled at 6k nowadays, which is pretty much what you can realistically get from 35mm anyway. (as well as what most lenses can provide)

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:22:35 UTC No. 16226548

>>16226452
>there hasn't been anything genuinely new
> only gradual improvements

In Applied Engineering, everything is a gradual improvement by using established engineering principles and practices to solve real-world problems and develop practical solutions.

In Engineering Research (R&D), is aimed at expanding the boundaries of knowledge and developing new technologies, techniques, and approaches. Everything must be discovered from the unknown through experimentation.

Which one are you referring to?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:24:33 UTC No. 16226549

>>16226488
>I was doing that with Skype 20 years ago.
Skype, in your pocket? as an app? in 2004? Running on a UHD display? At 5G speeds? Really? Tell us about it, I missed out on that

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:31:58 UTC No. 16226556

>>16226549
in 2007, I mean it wasn't in my pocket, but all it was was 5 minutes to boot up windows, it wasn't HD but it worked well enough.
You don't seem to get the general point, it's all convenience, part of the "more or less".

But 10 years ago we had robust video calls. And video calls are a novelty anyway, to this day most people just call normally or text because those things get you 97% of where you need to be.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:33:14 UTC No. 16226560

>>16226556
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWq7n4w3cq4

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:44:46 UTC No. 16226566

>>16226467
>What is an iPhone but a camera and a music player?
.. It's also a portal to the collected knowledge of humanity, real-time video of millions of video feeds from over the world, up-to-the-second virtually INSTANT news of anything happening anywhere in the world if you're tapped into the right sources, your bank account, your emergency flashlight, your portable, world-wide telephone, your diary, your calendar, your satellite navigation with actual images taken from cameras orbiting far above the ground. It is all of these things and more. It is so much more than just a camera and a music player.
And if it isn't incredible enough that all of these things are done by an object weighing a few ounces, they are affordable enough that virtually everyone on the planet has them, even the most impoverished or farthest flung from civilization.
Your conception fats so far short of reality as to be a caricature.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:56:45 UTC No. 16226580

>>16221937
HD television was possible when television was invented but was hamstrung by cheap ass financiers>>16221937

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 11:01:08 UTC No. 16226584

>>16226566
You don't seem to get the general point, it's all convenience, part of the "more or less".

But 10 years ago we had literally all of these thing and there's nothing looming in the horizon on where to even go next!!

In 20 years, you nephew will spend all his day browsing tik-tok and social media on a smartphone that looks exactly the same as smartphones looked for the last 14 years.

Because of the concept of "good enough" that seems so hard for you to understand.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 11:02:50 UTC No. 16226585

>>16226566
>>16226584
You're the type of dude that shills IoT and insists on having your fucking lightbulb connected to the internet so it knows when you enter the room when a light switch has been in use by most people for 100 years because....hear me out..... it works!!!!!

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 11:20:42 UTC No. 16226615

>>16226584
>where to even go next!!
Fusion energy is just around the corner, MrNA vaccines could prove to be revolutionary for cancer treatment, and once Starship is fully operational. large-scale space exploration will become feasible.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 11:43:17 UTC No. 16226632

>>16226584
>But 10 years ago we had literally all of these thing
Nice goalpost shift. The discussion was "technology has stagnated since the 70s."
You've already shifted to "technology has stagnated since 2014". Except we didn't have generative LLM and generative image models 10 years ago, and it's far from obvious that such technologies have peaked in sophistication.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 11:51:11 UTC No. 16226641

>>16226632
>more or less since the 70s
>stagnant since 10 years ago as the computer revolution, the last major revolution, ran its course.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:41:20 UTC No. 16226685

>>16226548
>Which one are you referring to?
Neither. I'm referring to things that didn't exist in any form or manber before, such as the steam engine, electricity, cars, various appliances, like washing machine, vacuum cleaners, microwaves, radio, TV...
Yes, we have LED lights now, but LEDs had existed for decades before, they only weren't good enough for lighting. But there are no such future prospects anymore. It's essentially impossible to write convincing sci-fi anymore, as there is nothing to look for. The authors of star trek must have known, for example that there were touch screens when they made all the ship touch screen controlled. You wouldn't encounter them in your daily life, they sucked, but they existed. It's likely that we are going to see walking robots soon, but I can't really think of anything outside of that.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 12:51:06 UTC No. 16226704

>>16226685
>It's likely that we are going to see walking robots soon

I don't buy it. The idea of a humanoid general purpose robot has no basis in functionality and is only carried by people's attachment to outdated sci-fi aesthetics.
In real life for any activity it's best to built a narrow machine that optimizes the issue, conveyor belts, robotic arms like in car factories that we had since the 90s...etc.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 13:07:33 UTC No. 16226721

>>16226704
>robotic arms like in car factories that we had since the 90s...etc.
That seems too late, it must have been earlier.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 13:09:24 UTC No. 16226728

>>16226721
Yes it says they were invented in the 60s but like 90s is when they became common place. Insane what ingenuity can do back then.
I made it a rule of thumb that whenever a see a new hyped up bullshit invention. I tell myself, if the 60s-70s engineers didn't do it, it probably doesn't work.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 13:14:01 UTC No. 16226733

This film came out in 1982. Watch it to realize how little the world has changed.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 13:41:29 UTC No. 16226769

>>16221937
So when OP said
>Technology is stagnant
What he meant was
>Technology isn’t stagnant but it hasn’t made the specific breakthroughs that I wanted at this point in my life.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 13:49:32 UTC No. 16226784

>>16226769
total stagnation for the last 10 years. but again was there a major leap between 74 and 84, 84 and 94? feels like there was between 94 and 2004 , 2004 and 2014 because that was they eye of the digitization storm.
but now we are back to the status quo

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 13:50:30 UTC No. 16226788

>>16226733
I watch it to think about how MUCH the world has changed.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 13:51:44 UTC No. 16226792

>>16226788
elaborate?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 14:01:51 UTC No. 16226800

>>16226784
Quantify what constitutes a “major leap” to you and then explain why none of the significant technological advancements of the last fifty years qualify as such.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 14:02:01 UTC No. 16226801

>>16226792
Uh …the world has changed a lot since 1982? What are you looking for here?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 14:16:08 UTC No. 16226816

>>16226800
Aviation is a major leap, being able to use that entire 3rd dimension for travel at high speeds, anywhere in the world is accessible in matter of days.
Global shipping, connecting international markets and allowing for fast steady transfer of resources anywhere in the world.

Antibiotics, Vaccines, Asthma medication. The ability to record footage with sound, transmit it through electromagnetic waves.

Broadcasting audio across the country, anyone can tune in, you have it in your car.

These all were things that barely existed or were very niche in 1920 and by 1970 they were basically mastered.

We had the blackbird, the 747, global shipping, eradicated most diseases, went to the moon, cinema, albums, radio playing music.
Telephone lines connecting the country, information travelled very fast.


I don't think anything comparable to that happened in the last 50 years. Internet and digitization were not as big, but massive and was soley responsible for us feeling that the rythm of progress was still high. and even that had run its course now.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 14:54:44 UTC No. 16226848

OP sounds a lot like those people who start "why don't high IQ people accomplish anything" threads where a midwit whines endlessly about the lack of interesting things and new toys produced by people more intelligent than them. Wouldn't be surprised if this thread was posted by one of them trying to new tactic since they always get fold to fuck off in their "high IQ people are pathetic losers" threads.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 15:00:23 UTC No. 16226855

>>16226816
Global shipping was definitely mastered way before 1920.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 15:07:12 UTC No. 16226858

>>16226855
>Before the advent of containerization in the 1950s
>The use of standardized steel shipping containers began during the late 1940s and early 1950s, when commercial shipping operators and the US military started developing such units.[18] In 1948 the U.S. Army Transportation Corps developed the "Transporter", a rigid, corrugated steel container, able to carry 9,000 pounds (4,100 kg). It was 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m) long, 6 ft 3 in (1.91 m) wide, and 6 ft 10 in (2.08 m) high, with double doors on one end, was mounted on skids, and had lifting rings on the top four corners.[19] After proving successful in Korea, the Transporter was developed into the Container Express (CONEX) box system in late 1952. Based on the Transporter, the size and capacity of the Conex were about the same,[nb 2] but the system was made modular, by the addition of a smaller, half-size unit of 6 ft 3 in (1.91 m) long, 4 ft 3 in (1.30 m) wide and 6 ft 10+1⁄2 in (2.10 m) high.[22][23][nb 3] CONEXes could be stacked three high, and protected their contents from the elements.[20] By 1965 the US military used some 100,000 Conex boxes, and more than 200,000 in 1967,[22][26] making this the first worldwide application of intermodal containers.[20] Their invention made a major contribution to the globalization of commerce in the second half of the 20th century, dramatically reducing the cost of transporting goods and hence of long-distance trade.[27][28]
>ISO standards for containers were published between 1968 and 1970 by the International Maritime Organization. These standards allow for more consistent loading, transporting, and unloading of goods in ports throughout the world, thus saving time and resources.[35]

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 15:09:27 UTC No. 16226861

>>16226848
Do you have anything interesting to say or add to the thread?

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 15:49:17 UTC No. 16226908

>>16223390
NTA but you got owned, retard. Don't talk about technological innovation if you can't play along.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 15:51:47 UTC No. 16226910

>>16224337
You are such a FAGGOT holy shit.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 15:55:17 UTC No. 16226914

>>16224817
>There’s zero push to cure it.
Because in the modern era, a non-negligible amount of cancer cases can be chalked up to dirty electricity and poor diet. To cure cancer, as a widespread epidemic, you would have to destroy these industries.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 15:57:06 UTC No. 16226918

>>16226914
Also, antibiotics ensured dysgenic children lived past their expiration dates.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 16:04:11 UTC No. 16226933

>>16224817
Cancer is getting cured all the time. Long-term survival rates are skyrocketing. The thing that's confusing you is that cancer isn't a disease; it's a whole class of diseases.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 19:48:13 UTC No. 16227281

>>16222885
It is as though history really does have an end.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:01:26 UTC No. 16227314

>>16226816
>Global shipping
that wasn't a "leap", that evolved slowly over millennia of seafaring.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:02:36 UTC No. 16227317

>>16226858
>standardized steel shipping containers
that's not the same as "global shipping", that's efficient loading and unloading.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:09:13 UTC No. 16227332

>>16226685
>such as the steam engine
practical engineering
>electricity
vague
>cars
practical engineering
>appliances
practical engineering
>we have LED lights now
practical engineering
>LEDs had existed for decades before, they only weren't good enough for lighting
R&D

anyway,
I don't know what to say, it's as if you expect breakthroughs to happen as if on an agenda, or schedule, like clockwork or something

Sorry, but that's not how reality works. discoveries happen often by pure chance, by luck. There ae many more failures than successes, maybe you have a distorted vision of what discovery and invention really entail.

Actually, you do, it's obvious.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:10:23 UTC No. 16227333

>>16224255
This guy has no clue how phones work

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:10:29 UTC No. 16227334

>>16226733
>Watch it to realize how little the world has changed.
I don't have to, I was there. I was 7 years old, and boy, you have no idea how much has changed. NONE

Spoiled brats being spoiled, typical.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:11:30 UTC No. 16227335

>>16226769
exactly

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:13:21 UTC No. 16227340

>>16226556
You literally have a supercomputer in your pocket and you're thinking progress hasn't happened?
kek

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:16:43 UTC No. 16227345

>>16226848
>OP sounds a lot like those people who start "why don't high IQ people accomplish anything" threads
Oh, we know the reasons.
1960s: the best and brightest worked in defence, aerospace, space race, electronics, medical tech and more, creating all the marvels that people take for granted today
2020s: the best and brightest work in the surveillance economy, funneling trillions to a small number of gigacorporations.

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 20:28:14 UTC No. 16227362

>>16221937
>Computer age
Everything just moves to computers: education, finance, hobbies, communities, propaganda, production, etc. Other then that it's all stagnation & destruction. Energy is still on fucking oil although nuclear works, economy is bamboozled although we're richer then ever, water & food are lesser quality although the technology is better.
So Computers & Corporatism for the whole
Computers & Celebritism for the few

MASS SURVEILLANCE IS WAY BETTER!!!

Anonymous at Mon, 10 Jun 2024 21:28:02 UTC No. 16227463

>>16226556
>>16226488
>negatively
>And video calls are a novelty anyway, to this day most people just call normally or text because those things get you 97% of where you need to be.
And a car is no more advanced than a horse, since a horse will get you where you need to be 97% of the time.

You see the problem here? We can keep moving goal posts until we say technology hasn't changed anything over the last 10,000 years and you can dismiss ANY advancement as a net negative. Wouldn't even be that hard, there's analogs for nearly everything. I mean, sure there's that extracting nitrates out of the air so we can quit having wars over bat guano, but a ten fold increase in population isn't a good thing, is it?

And no, you would have had to hire multiple experts in the field or a small army of researches to debunk the simplest of old wive's tales using the fucking library, but as long as we're going that there, who needs libraries? I mean the books were laying about, and it was all so much easier when one guy could simply memorize near everything known to man.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:43:15 UTC No. 16227727

>>16223621
anon speakers are the one technology that's been solved unironically since the 70s

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 00:49:21 UTC No. 16227738

>>16224387
you're not staying consistent. Yes there was some experimental video call shit in the 30s but it wasn't practical until recently. Your whole point is how your life hasn't changed due to technology since the 70s. Video calling has not been normal since the 70s that's a dishonest implication

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 01:42:13 UTC No. 16227775

>>16227463
>And a car is no more advanced than a horse, since a horse will get you where you need to be 97% of the time.

Nah. You are unironically too low I.Q for this conversation.

Those analogies are not the same? do most people still use a horse? no because cars are not novelty.
Video calls are a novelty though. They don't really matter that much.

I am not sure but really since the 70s and 80s, whenever you wanted to get information out internationally to anyone, you can do it in hours.
Watch the shining they had phones, they could call police any time. You could get in touch with anyone you want to at any time. Modern civilization had gotten 97% of the way there.

> you would have had to hire multiple experts in the field or a small army of researches to debunk the simplest of old wive's tales using the fucking library

This didn't happen because education standards were much higher. And any amount of it that happened ironically more of it happens now because of all the bullshit that needs to filtered out on the internet,
You make a big deal about an iPhone being a portal to "all human knowledge" but ironically what effect of that do we see in reality? people are as ignorant if not more ignorant than ever.

By the time we had public libraries and mass production of books, and enough time so popular competent books had been written on every subject (70s), ignorance had become a choice, and it is still a choice today.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:27:41 UTC No. 16227877

>>16227332
>discoveries happen often by pure chance, by luck.
How the fuck do you think inventions work? Do you think that Trevitchick tried to build a good old atmospheric steam engine, but somehow made an error, and boom, a high pressure engine?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:31:48 UTC No. 16227885

>>16227345
No, not even that. I think they work as streamers and youtubers. You can really see that when some average people get a boost by appearing with a famous personality. They do get that views, but then drop back to barely thousands.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:43:18 UTC No. 16227899

>>16227727
No, they had absolutely massive distortion until much more recently. There are still many many people who think that the booming bass is actually present in the music.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 03:58:53 UTC No. 16227908

>>16227775
Just because everyone texts for expediency, or only uses the Internet for cats and porn, does not mean the technology doesn't exist. And it isn't simply a "novelty", there's lots of interactions you simply can't do without a whiteboard and video as well as trust that is otherwise difficult if not impossible to acquire. People have international relationships today that were never possible in the past, and the ever increasing interconnectedness of the world reflects that.

And speaking as someone who actually remembers what academic life was like before the Internet, no. Education standards being (somewhat, not much) higher had little to no effect. How would one even answer a question so simple as "Why is the sky blue?" without asking someone using a goddamned library? What are you going to do, check out a dozen books on meteorology, chemistry, and optics, and hope you can somehow glean the answer from it all? It took hours to answer even the most basic questions, often days, and most people didn't bother, which is why there were so many old wive's tales floating about, few of which were ever questioned outside of the related academic circles, and the occasional television show that happened to hit upon the topic. Knowledge wise, it really was an entirely different world before the Internet went main stream. The world has changed so radically since then it's almost impossible to convey and it makes the social revolutions that caused so much turmoil in 60's look like nothing at all in comparison.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 04:09:24 UTC No. 16227925

>>16227908
>How would one even answer a question so simple as "Why is the sky blue?" without asking someone
Literally as easy as asking your science professor the next day or opening up one of those encyclopedia everyone had at home. Much better for human interactions and building a sense of community, and giving you time to ponder the question yourself and cherish knowledge.

You're so connected to your phone you can't fathom that life moved smoothly before, even smoother than before.

The 80s were not the dark ages my dude. And the whole 'access to knowledge' thing is non squitter when as I explained to you before, people are dumber and more ignorant than ever.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 04:14:40 UTC No. 16227931

>>16227925
Hell, your dad, brother or uncle or someone probably had the answer and it would make for fun family discussion.
>your whole family is ignorant
Well tough luck. That still could happen today and if that's the case you're probably so dumb you browse tik-tok all day and are even more of a braindead zombie than you would've been in the 70s.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 04:23:15 UTC No. 16227938

>>16227931
>>16227925

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 04:24:46 UTC No. 16227940

>>16227938
Probably would have had to go to the library but you know it's still pretty easy.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 04:30:29 UTC No. 16227944

>>16221937
Ok

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 05:39:11 UTC No. 16227990

>>16227877
>How the fuck do you think inventions work?
practical engineering
>Do you think that Trevitchick tried to build a good old atmospheric steam engine, but somehow made an error, and boom, a high pressure engine?
practical engineering attempt that by pure chance led to some other R&D discovery, a little bit of both processes there. The two are interconnected, and it proves my point: R&D is unpredictable and unreliable.

Point is, practical engineering progress can happen at a somewhat regular pace because you are grabbing ideas that already exist and "reassembling them" for another purpose. It like assembling Legos from a catalogue of pieces.
There are only so many permutations of ideas and knowledge that you can do for practical applications with a finite set of knowledge.

R&D cannot do that, it is the process that actually expands that set of knowledge, it has to find new things our of the unknown of the cosmos, and that process is unpredictable. R&D is discovering new Lego pieces, no catalogue.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 06:43:03 UTC No. 16228049

>>16227990
You have no idea.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 07:36:38 UTC No. 16228087

>>16227345
Top talent goes into fintech and the advertising industry (which is what most tech giants really are). The best and brightest use their creative intellect to figure out more ways to get people to buy things they don't need and how to clip more slivers off of financial transactions everyone makes. Both benefit from the privatized surveillance state.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 07:40:12 UTC No. 16228091

>>16228087
for the millionth time. it got nothing to do with talent, lack of geniuses or funding. It's a fundamental limit on what ingenuity can achieve in this universe.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 08:02:48 UTC No. 16228107

>>16228091
You're just wrong. It has everything to do with elite positions getting dominated by stupid people who determine who is allowed in and are entirely immune to criticism.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 08:11:55 UTC No. 16228117

>>16228049
>You have no idea.
weak riposte

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 08:13:56 UTC No. 16228119

>>16228091
>It's a fundamental limit on what ingenuity can achieve in this universe.
This exactly

>There are only so many permutations of ideas and knowledge that you can do for practical applications with a finite set of knowledge.
>>16227990

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 08:37:32 UTC No. 16228129

>>16228087
What areas would be better suited for intelligent people?

Also I don't buy the genius myth. Technological progress in the past has not primarily been driven by irreplaceable geniuses (There always were runner-ups).
Nonetheless it might still be true that nowadays the limiting factor of technological progress has shifted from resource availability to intellectual attention. (I wonder about how far limited widespread attention may be beneficial by enforcing a focus on the essential though (or in more general terms less incentive misdirection). I wouldn't want spaceflight to become the new cancer research.)

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 08:53:01 UTC No. 16228133

>>16228119
>>16228129
It's because elite positions got dominated by stupid people.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 09:11:11 UTC No. 16228139

>>16228133
Sorry, but I still don't care about the elite.
Why would it matter who has power? As long as non retarded people have some power too, nothing stops technological progress.
Incentive misdirection has nothing to do with anyone being elite or not.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 09:46:28 UTC No. 16228170

>>16221937

The most important invention after fire has been the transistor. Never before has humanity built and used something in such quantities.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 10:09:09 UTC No. 16228195

>>16228133
>It's because elite positions got dominated by stupid people
All over the world? In a world where economies and companies constantly compete through innovation? kek
That is a whole lots of daisy-chained conspiracies for you to prove, good luck.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 10:31:03 UTC No. 16228209

We are still killing our planet by using lithium batteries in our devices.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 10:33:37 UTC No. 16228212

>>16227885
>I think they work as streamers and youtubers.
Do you really think those are "the best and brightest" of our times?? If that were the case, the West is deep in a terminal decline.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 10:58:14 UTC No. 16228221

>>16228139
>>16228195
They make sure that (almost) nobody can get there. No good education, no good job, no money to start own business.
>>16228212
>If that were the case, the West is deep in a terminal decline.
At least one gets it.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 12:06:54 UTC No. 16228267

>>16228195
>In a world where economies and companies constantly compete through innovation
Well it's clearly not working cause they are not innovating anything.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 15:23:16 UTC No. 16228468

>>16227908
>>16227938
>>16227940
Absolutely demolished. Zoomers can't comprehend the world existed before their precious little iPhones

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 15:40:44 UTC No. 16228489

>>16227877
Many major breakthroughs have been serendipitous. ex. the team that developed the first IR-sensitive CCDs stumbled on the process that ended up actually working completely by accident (IIRC a sample was accidentally annealed a particular way by mistake)

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 15:48:29 UTC No. 16228496

>>16227908
It was better in a way.
First, intelligence still had some value. You were the guy who could figure it out. The iphone elliminated the value of intelligence the same way that machines elliminated the value of strength. The consequences are potentially tragic.
Second, it made you focus on knowledge that mattered. "Why is the sky blue?" is a question that only seems to exist in order to be answered. Why do you need to know that? Does it help you to do anything better? People say we suffer from information overload, but how much of it you need to know, and how much is just noise that can be safely ignored?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 15:50:21 UTC No. 16228498

>>16228496
>People say we suffer from information overload, but how much of it you need to know

This. people didn't need to know why the sky is blue and get an explanation that they don't even understand,
They'd pick up the guitar instead have time alone with their thoughts and be music geniuses.
Too much noise nowadays.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 15:55:36 UTC No. 16228503

>>16228496
>Why do you need to know that?
Why do you need to know anything beyond the bare minimum of information necessary to survive? If it's all meaningless then go play innawoods and leave the rest of us alone.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 16:57:46 UTC No. 16228577

>>16221956
you're wearing a tuxedo on a plane? is this bait or are you genuinely this autistic?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 16:59:14 UTC No. 16228581

>>16228577
Nah just ESL, I meant suit.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 16:59:55 UTC No. 16228582

>>16228503
Do you also keep every piece of junk that you can find?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:04:08 UTC No. 16228593

>>16228582
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxaGnte1Dq0nll9vAYVf7i-dx3EhUEM3y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnCOT8tbAX0&list=PLxaGnte1Dq0nll9vAYVf7i-dx3EhUEM3y&index=1

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:02:58 UTC No. 16228735

>>16226801
Can you really not even ... think?
Consider how much the world changed between the years 1000 and 1040 (< this is your base case assumption).

Now consider three scenarios beside the one you already referred to.
How much has the world changed between 1820 and 1860?
How much has the world changed between 1880 and 1920?
How much has the world changed between 1930 and 1970?
For an especially fun game, try to match each of these stretches to one (or more) technologies/developments. I am sure you can come up with some. Please note it has been shown that people with low IQ have zero ability to order things according to historical significance. If you ask them why laptop computer played little to no role in WW2, they will say "I dunno".

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:06:16 UTC No. 16228752

>>16228735
What are you even trying to say? say it like a normal person.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:16:28 UTC No. 16228768

>>16221937
Knowledge is a forest. Tech "advancements" are more developments than "advances" because ancients still had many of the industrious capabilties we don't and much insight that would be worthwhile to recover. Civil engineering was the FIRST engineering. Mechanical engineering was first applied to engines on trains and shipyard supply chains. DeIndustrialization in the USA has ruined the financing of manufacturing so you can count on R&D becoming anemic and limpwristed mired in distracting bullshit.
China will advance tech where the US left off because that is the banking agenda.

Captcha: lmao look

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:05:02 UTC No. 16229000

>>16221937
You have no idea what's coming in the next 10 years, prepare yourself.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:08:20 UTC No. 16229011

>>16229000
Nothing is coming. And I plan to be gone long before then

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:14:25 UTC No. 16229021

>>16221956
You sound like a fucking retard

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:47:12 UTC No. 16229074

>>16228489
Vulcanisation of rubber was another famous case.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:59:43 UTC No. 16229090

>>16229000
If I don't have any idea of what's coming, how can I prepare myself?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:01:43 UTC No. 16229096

>>16228091
>It's a fundamental limit on what ingenuity can achieve in this universe.
That limit might exist but you have not shown that we have reached it. To the contrary it is just as likely that massive academic fraud plus direction of the best and brightest towards the surveillance economy is the current issue.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:49:04 UTC No. 16229734

>>16228752
Can't you get what he's saying?
1820 to 1860 saw a massive rise in steam power, trains, steamships, a bulk of jobs getting automated. Things changed massively.
1880 to 1920 saw the first major uses of electricity, modern bicycles, public transport like trams and first subways, cars, tractors and harvesters, even more automation, assembly lines, electricity at home, first appliances, first airplanes, and the first real radio station.
1930 to 1970
In 1930, planes were hardly worth of use and airships were still the only practical mean of air transport. By the end there were modern jet planes space race and the moon landing. Even more automation with industrial robots and computers, and the beginning of plastics.
1984 had essentually all modern things, including the early versions modern computers (x86/apple) and pet bottles. Most of what we've seen relates to the computers shrinking enough to fit in a pocket, faster trains (if you live in the right location) and more and more plastics.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:53:24 UTC No. 16229740

>>16229000
>ZOMG THE SINGULARITY'S GONNA HAPPEN TOMORROW TRUST ME

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:48:37 UTC No. 16229996

>>16229000
The only things I can imagine, are gene editing and BCI. Both are evolutions of what we see today and both are tied up in debates on ethics, and most likely both will be common in China in 5 - 10 years and the West in 30 years.

I guess Chinese fighter pilots strapped in with BCI, Firefox style, will give cause for at least some exceptions.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:06:08 UTC No. 16230010

>>16228468
More like zoomers who simply can't comprehend just how radically technology has changed the world since the 70's, because they were born in this shit and think it's always been this way. We work different, we play different, we view the world different, we do politics radically different, we fundamentally interact different, we even think different, and there's no going back.

...and they make this ludicrous claim that nothing has changed, even though nearly everything fundamental has, while living during the dawn of the age of AI, which, at the very least, threatens every other cushy job on the planet, and at most, upend everything. Assuming there's any of them left, Alpha's are still going to be saying "nothing has changed" as their bioengineered children battle against sentient nanomachines.

t. Gen-X

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:18:47 UTC No. 16230019

>>16230010
>We work different, we play different, we view the world different, we do politics radically different, we fundamentally interact different, we even think different, and there's no going back.

Not in the last 10 years. Most of this is due to cultural change not anything to do with technology.
People are becoming more of ignorant cattle hooked to the latest distraction.

But literally nothing has changed in the last 10 years and it won't ever change, this is the final status quo

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:25:14 UTC No. 16230026

>>16229734
So what? You can handwave away the miniaturisation of computer technology as "merely" a refinement of existing technology (I disagree with this characterisation) but it doesn't change the fact that the ubiquity of smartphones and Internet technologies have changed our day to day lives more than any other technology since the internal combustion engine or mass public transit. It had completely transformed how most people live, work, learn, & socialise.
Forty years ago, even in the most "developed" parts of the West, at-least performative church attendance was still high, people socialised face-to-face and most people knew or even were friends with at least a few of their neighbours.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:27:56 UTC No. 16230029

>>16230019
Your favorite accent will disappear.
All I wanted was to steal a Sari wearing hindi swearing Indian girl from a British man and now all thats left is fat mutt Americans even if they are born abroad and have no citizenship.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:29:24 UTC No. 16230030

>>16229996
>Both are evolutions of what we see today
Everything is an evolution of something else. Mass-transit steam locomotives were an evolution of early engines used at coal mines themselves to haul fuel out from the mines or towards coal barges.
Telephones were an evolution of telegraphs. Passenger airplanes were an evolution of technology developed for fighting aircraft.
Every technology and invention is an evolution of the knowledge or techniques that came before. Every advance humanity makes is made standing on the shoulders of everything that came before.
It doesn't make them any less significant. You're just trying to exclude them a priority because it fits your pessimistic narrative of stagnation.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:31:18 UTC No. 16230032

>>16230019
>Not in the last 10 years
OP was about stagnation since the 1970s, not since 2014 lmao, keep moving those goalposts.
>society hasn't completely transformed into something unrecognisable in the last 3650 days, therefore it is STAGNATED
Lmfao fucking sort yourself out m8 get some fuckin perspective you mad cunt

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:37:04 UTC No. 16230036

>>16230026
>miniaturisation of computer technology as "merely
The thing is, we rode that wave. And there's no other wave on the horizon.
>Forty years ago, even in the most "developed" parts of the West, at-least performative church attendance was still high, people socialised face-to-face and most people knew or even were friends with at least a few of their neighbours

This was the case in 2004. The world changed massively once you got to 2014 because that's when the wave did most of its effect.
The world has barely changed since 2014 and is likely to still be that way.

Also worth noting that the effect of this wave was more cultural rather than adding any tangible technlogical value to people's lives.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:38:23 UTC No. 16230038

>>16230032
>OP was about stagnation since the 1970s
more or less stagnant since the 70s. Totally stagnant in the last 10 years (let epsilon be bigger than zero). read the thread

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:41:45 UTC No. 16230040

>>16230030
Theres nothing evolving anymore. Electronics was the only thing left and its now commodified. Hardware is a commodity and software too. Creating content will become a commodity too, with A.I getting increasingly better at writing scripts and rendering entire films

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:46:06 UTC No. 16230044

>>16230040
>There's nothing evolving anymore. Electronics was the only thing left and its now commodified

The thing a lot of people don't comprehend is the concept of good enough. At some points we had phones capable of shooting 4K video and sending it anywhere in the world in an instant.
Even if we could improve electronics, if Moore's law held and we could exponentially increase compute. Why should we?
we have no application for more compute. Our phones don't need to get any faster or smaller than they are right now.

>The first mobile phones to be able to record at 2160p (3840×2160) were released in late 2013, including the Samsung Galaxy Note 3, which is able to record 2160p at 30 frames per second.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:51:00 UTC No. 16230048

>>16230036
You keep saying the world hasnt changed and you don't even offer any metrics.
How are you measuring change? How can we possibly hope to make any sort of objective analysis of your assertion if you don't even offer an empirical measurement?
Choose some metrics which back up your assertions. If you can't find any, then it may mean you need to reconsider your theory.
>>16230038
>more or less stagnant since the 70s
Lol
Lmao
>Totally stagnant in the last 10 years
Wanna know how I know you're too young to remember 9/11?
>>16230040
>A.I getting increasingly better at writing scripts and rendering entire films
>this new and rapidly improving technology that is already changing how many people work and threatens to upend myriad industries is a great example how stagnant technology is
Weird argument about how things aren't evolving but OK

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:54:51 UTC No. 16230050

>>16230048
read the thread.
also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBT9vFrV6yQ

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:57:26 UTC No. 16230051

>>16230050
>Sabine Horseface
Opinion disregarded / buy an ad / at the very least, articulate your own thoughts.
I read the thread and I disagree with the vague, non-specific analysis of anons arguing in favour of the stagnation perspective.
From inside the wave of change we live in, it's hard to see the change.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:57:40 UTC No. 16230052

>>16230048
>Weird argument about how things aren't evolving but OK
Its just media, entertainment from a screen.
Do you see anywhere something akin to aviation being discovered, or electricity?
You get the same world except that its now much cheaper to make movies

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:59:38 UTC No. 16230053

>>16230051
>at the very least, articulate your own thoughts.
These are not "my" thoughts. They dont belong to me, thats a very widespread idea and if sabine is better at conveying them, why not let her? Sabine herself is just conveying the ideas of an author she cites in her video.
Why do you want me to "articulate" things any different if the idea is the same? Idiot

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:00:09 UTC No. 16230054

>>16230052
Not only that. Even fully fledged entertainment generated out of thin air would be a non squitter because entertainment is already saturated.

If you removed all the music from the last 10-15 years, not much of value would have been lost.
Now that AI music is fully fledged one can see it's just a sea of Diarrhea unleashed on an already saturated field.

Ai movies wouldn't be much different.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:05:06 UTC No. 16230059

>>16222022
I am hella late to the thread to clown on and (rightfully so) verbally harass OP, but I'd like to point out that PCR completely revolutionized biology. Biology's history is pretty much marked into pre- and post-PCR epochs.

This was invented in 1983, put to good use in the 1990's and has itself undergone countless iterations of improvement to boot.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:06:01 UTC No. 16230061

>>16230052
The same AI principles that underpin LLM and generative image models are also being used to find relationships in data sets that are too complicated or subtle for humans to spot, to discover how proteins fold from only their amino acid sequence, to discover new therapeutic molecules by accurately predicting how a new substance will interact with a known organic molecule, to help an autonomous drone navigate an unknown environment without using GPS, the list goes on.
>While AI-created drugs have not gained FDA approval to enter the market, encouraging developments have materialized within the clinical trial landscape. As of March 2022, Boston Consulting Group reported that biotechnology firms using AI as a primary strategy had over 150 small-molecule drugs in the discovery phase, with over 15 already advancing through clinical trials. Below, we list two prominent drugs that were FDA-approved for clinical trials.
150 candidate drugs awaiting trials, 15 of them already commencing with trials. All discovered and trials commenced within the last 10 years. It used to take an entire lab team over 10 years simply to discover, invent or identify a candidate molecule, study it in vitro & devise efficient synthesis pathways, and then another 5 years to carry out clinical trials.
Whilst it's true that no AI/ML derived drug is yet on the market, this is more a factor of the strict regulatory environment around novel molecules than it is a failure of this new technology. New candidate moles can be identified, screened and tested in clinical trials in 12 months instead of 5 years. If you don't think that's hot shit then get out of here.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:07:01 UTC No. 16230062

>>16230053
>They dont belong to me, thats a very widespread idea and if sabine is better at conveying them, why not let her?
Why say anything at all then? Why post anything?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:07:52 UTC No. 16230063

>>16230061
Read the thread>>16225317

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:13:47 UTC No. 16230066

>>16230063
The article linked in that post can be summarised best in the author's own conclusion
>So let's watch these numbers as things evolve and come back to this topic. For now, I am not convinced that issuing press releases about your compounds that talk about their discovery through AI techniques is sufficient to expect greater things from them. I would like for that to be true, but I'm not ready to say that it is yet.
>yet

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:16:54 UTC No. 16230074

>>16230066
I've YET to see its effects. My headache medication is a 100 year old pill. So the burden of proof is on you AI shills.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:25:02 UTC No. 16230078

>>16230010
>this ludicrous claim that nothing has changed, even though nearly everything fundamental has
Really. Did you even try to read through the early part of this thread where the arguments were given? Or do yo just prefer to leap into conclusion founded entirely on emotions?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:27:36 UTC No. 16230083

>>16230062
>Why say anything at all then? Why post anything?
To spread the idea. It seemed relevant at this moment, i dont have to be controlled by some law that says i can only say something if im the first tp ever think about it and that i have to use my own words. Who the fuck do you think you are to police speech like that?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:50:07 UTC No. 16230100

>>16230074
>medicine hasn't been completely transformed into something unrecognisable in the last 3650 days, therefore it has STAGNATED

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:00:41 UTC No. 16230110

>>16230010
That's social decay.
>>16230030
No, that's really different.
>Every advance humanity makes is made standing on the shoulders of everything that came before.
That's really doubtful, and sounds more like an attempt to diminish people's achievements.
>>16230036
Another thing is that most of what did occur hasn't been of western origin, but moved to Asia.
>>16230048
>>Totally stagnant in the last 10 years
>Wanna know how I know you're too young to remember 9/11?
What do you mean?
>>16230061
All published AI is just a bullshit generator, that blatantly makes up answers it hasn't been trained to answer.

Barkon. at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:02:31 UTC No. 16230111

Check em

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:06:57 UTC No. 16230113

If you think we haven't stagnated, just remember that you are using a website with a U.I that hasn't changed since 2002.

Barkon. at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:09:07 UTC No. 16230114

>>16230113
I can hear you right now. We are so close. You have a voice with me as leader. If you speak, we all hear you.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:21:02 UTC No. 16230349

>>16230100
Did you tread the thread? The in silico approach failed utterly.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:27:14 UTC No. 16230356

>>16230349
That's a poor or dishonest characterisation. In silico is so new that all that can be said is that it's mostly doing as well as human invented molecules, most of which also don't get to or pass phase III, but AI is enabling much more of this sifting of promising looking target interactions and can at worst be said to be performing on par with the traditional routes.
It took more than 10 years from the first inter-university computer connections for the Internet to radically alter human interaction and social organisation, but it happened eventually all the same.
Give these changes which, by your own argument, are less paradigm shift than iterative refinement, a little bit more time to come down the pipeline.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 14:56:49 UTC No. 16230395

>>16230113
No one’s forcing you to post here. There are plenty of places on the internet where things change and where they don’t just have the same discussions thread after thread like it’s fucking Groundhog Day.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:01:06 UTC No. 16230400

>>16230395
Literally all of the internet is just people posting the same bullshit over and over again.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:13:16 UTC No. 16230412

>>16230010
It’s basically par for the course for younger generations who haven’t been around long enough to actually become aware of changes to bitch about how nothing has changed. As Millenial born in the late 80s I’m acutely aware of how much technology and society has changed since I was 5, 10, 20, etc. and I don’t doubt the same is true for Gen X and for older generations.

Zoomers are in their tweens to twenties. They’re too young to remember a time before 9/11 and the internet, before smart phones and social media, before LED monitors and lithium ion batteries, etc.

Give them another decade or so and they’ll make the transition from “nothing ever changes” to “things were better in my day” and it’ll be the Alphies’ turn to bitch about how nothing ever changes.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:54:31 UTC No. 16230499

>>16230412
This time, nothing will ever change though. We are in the steady state of culture/technology. If a big change happen it will only be collapse.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:15:45 UTC No. 16230525

>>16229011
Nice dubs. So you're gonna kill yourself in the next 10 years?
>>16229090
You can prepare by carrying a bottle of lubricant with you
>>16229740
It's on the cards, but not likely. Even if it happened, we'd still be having these threads because the sexbots aren't real enough, we don't have X exactly like in anime, or X exists, but not everyone can afford it.
>>16229996
'Ethics' is certainly a problem. There are some biotechnologies that could work today, but are being held back because of taboo. Some are working in secret to break them
>BCI
Yup. Whether it changes stuff in the next 10 years is a wild card
>gene editing
Pretty hopeless for people that are already alive. Modifying embryos still sucks, won't have much effect in the next 10 years. Stay tuned, there will be some fun announcements in the next year or so for doing something similar with current tech. And the government won't be able to stop it.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:32:47 UTC No. 16230550

>>16230499
>THIS TIME SHALL BE DIFFERENT!
It’s not different at all.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 17:08:02 UTC No. 16230616

>>16224337

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:13:45 UTC No. 16230734

>>16230010
>>16230036
No way you didn't notice the change slowing down.
>>16230026
Even that has slowed down. Computers maybe doubled in speed in ten years, the progress is more an illusion from more and more cores and cache put into one package, it's definitely nearing the end.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:42:29 UTC No. 16230761

>>16230734
>No way you didn't notice the change slowing down.
Quite the opposite! The spread of the technology, and all the social upheaval that comes with it, has been doing nothing but accelerating. More people than ever are living in the same nation, but in entirely different realities from one another, and now we even have bloody AI breathing down our necks, for fuck's sake. I'm rapidly getting to that age where there's more change than I can deal with, and it just keeps piling on faster and faster.

Heck, the car I bought just five years ago is already obsolete, because the days of gas stations being on every corner seem to be coming to an end, and that's the absolute least of concerning things I'm watching unfold. Pretty soon people are going to be so alien to me that I won't be able to communicate with anyone more than a decade younger than me anymore, and I'm sure they'll still somehow be lamenting the lack of change between autistic ticks of skibidi toilet.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:55:02 UTC No. 16230971

>>16230026
>but it doesn't change the fact that the ubiquity of smartphones and Internet technologies have changed our day to day lives
Improved availability of tech will no doubt change our lives, but that is still not the same as a breakthrough. Those are seperate issues.
About 10 years ago I read a scientist invited to a meeting with investment bankers (I think, memory is a little hazy), and they asked him about the relationship between research and development. What I do remember clearly, was that he said that if you cut all research funding today, it would take about 20 years before it impacted development. The amount of scientific knowledge not yet developed into product gives us a long, long pipeline. I just hope nobody uses this knowledge to "save" research cost, and thereby stunt the future.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 21:11:05 UTC No. 16230991

>>16230356
The term is from 1989. How many more years wandering in the desert do you want to see? Big pharma is already retreating to traditional discovery, a pretty solid indication that the well is dry.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 21:18:08 UTC No. 16231000

>>16230525
>'Ethics' is certainly a problem. There are some biotechnologies that could work today, but are being held back because of taboo. Some are working in secret to break them
That would be the Chinese. The CCP has exactly zero inhibitions and have openly stated some rather dramatic ambitions, ranging from "cleaning up" the gene pool to engineering super soldiers.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:18:19 UTC No. 16231374

>>16231000
They imprisoned a guy for fiddling with embryos. I mean only the gods know what that government is doing behind the scenes, but on the surface, they seem to have some of the same ethics issues.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:59:28 UTC No. 16232037

>>16231374
No, they SAID they imprisoned him.
First, in a totalitarian society as in China, the CCP knows everything that is going on. They knew about this.
Second, there was a picture of that scientist with a CCP member, in an interview about the project. Again, the project was know and also permitted.
Most likely, the CCP was unhappy the information about the project leaked out to the world at large.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:33:29 UTC No. 16232081

It's unlikely there will be any major breakthroughs in technology for at least 10-15 years. Cell phone technology is already peak

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:55:29 UTC No. 16232117

>>16230761
Seriously, are you paid for posting this? It's just bizarre.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 09:18:25 UTC No. 16232145

>>16232117
NTA, but time moves faster as you get older, so probably checks out.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 10:39:34 UTC No. 16232250

>>16232081
A long shot perhaps but if LK-99 turns out to have merits, it would be a breakthrough.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 10:46:19 UTC No. 16232264

>>16232117
He's not wrong. The kind of change we see each decade used to take a hundred years or more, and I really think it's now coming far too fast for society to adjust, or even brace itself.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 11:03:15 UTC No. 16232287

>>16232117
Are you?

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 11:09:20 UTC No. 16232299

>>16232250
>if a breakthrough turns our to be a breakthrough, it would be a breakthrough
Why did you even post this?

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 11:32:02 UTC No. 16232349

>>16232264
On the contrary, we now see maybe 18 months to 2 years spread over a decade.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 12:58:02 UTC No. 16232451

>>16232299
The indication of a breakthrough was already posted but we are in a similar position as with YBCO, where it took some time to realise that it was the 123 phase that worked.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:15:53 UTC No. 16232652

>>16232349
Are you fucking kidding me? In the last four years alone, thanks to improvements in software and certain "selection pressures", we've gone from remote working being the exception to it being the norm. Infrastructure for mass remote schooling was hastily put in place for the same reasons. No one leaves their houses for hardly anything anymore. Near everyone has their groceries and food delivered, and, thanks to warehouse automation and improvements in networking technology, you can order just about anything else and have it at your door within the day, without paying any exorbitant express delivery fees - it's just the norm now. People are so comfortable communicating by Internet that they don't hook up in clubs or in school anymore, being almost exclusively the privy of dating apps. We've wired every corner of the planet with high speed internet, thanks to a dangerously unprecedented collection of near Earth micro-satellites, so now even isolated primitive tribes have porn. Hybrid cars became the norm, with electric ones hot on their tale to replace even those. ...And all that, combined with the television that once united the nation becoming a thing of the past and everything being streamed on demand, causes whole swaths of the population to now live in realities completely incompatible with one another, and often those same people will be neighbors.

Most of this no one in even 2019 saw coming, and many people and industries are still having trouble adjusting to the new reality, let alone the reality that AI is just now threatening to bring.

No previous single generation since the black plague has seen this much change within such a short period of time, and many are clearly traumatized by it. Yet more is coming, and it shows no signs of letting up.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:12:49 UTC No. 16232886

>>16232264
>The kind of change we see each decade used to take a hundred years or mor
This hasn't been the case since 1800, and the tech that was being developed in the 1800s and 1900s was more transformative and came every decade, like at the snip of a finger.
What was the transformative tech introduced in the 2010s? 2020s? And before, for the latter, you say "LLMs" I dare you, I fucking double dare you. That would be ridiculous on so many levels. It's useful, sure, but it doesn't change your life, and never will, like electrification or the personal car.
(I could also whip out a nerd point about the asymptote being reached with LLMs, but those perform poorly and never get read)

2010s and beyond is just a refinement and expansion of what was there before. That is perfectly fine, but it's not technological progress, it's economical progress.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:16:33 UTC No. 16232896

>>16232652
Hello Mr. Gates, can you tell me exactly when more is coming?

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:32:08 UTC No. 16232937

>>16232652
>we've gone from remote working being the exception to it being the norm.
Purely a social/economical process.
Besides, actual valuable jobs can not so easily be converted to WFH.
>dating apps.
Dating apps are not a tech advance.
According to this logic, if I write a wholly novel Python program that lets me ERP with an anime character or something, that this would be a tech invention.
Sure, society has changed due to tech, which no one disputes. But that isn't equal/equivalent to technological progress.
>We've wired every corner of the planet with high speed internet, thanks to a dangerously unprecedented collection of near Earth micro-satellites
Smaller telecommunications satellites launched on more robust reusable rocketry than what was invented in the 80s, when they had to fish the Space Shuttle boosters out of the ocean and land the central part (the orbited) like a plane, are some of the most archetypical examples of refinement rather than true tech progress. It's like you are either defeating your own point on purpose, or not understanding what we are saying. Again, it's not the expansion or small-scale refinement of tech that is stagnating.
>Hybrid cars became the norm, with electric ones hot on their tale to replace even those.
Electric cars are worse by every metric besides carbon emissions. Why do they and hybrid even matter? Who cares?

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:38:47 UTC No. 16232948

>>16232937
>Purely a social/economical process.
NTA but it's not purely a socioeconomic process. It's been enabled by the computing power available to even the poorest in society and the massive bandwidth available for the unbelievable quantities of data required to enable remote working.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:48:06 UTC No. 16232972

I dont consider some new design of computer chip to be a fundamental advance in science or even engineering. Its like a custom made suit made by a tailor, not a discovery

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 18:02:20 UTC No. 16233006

>>16232652
>we've gone from remote working being the exception to it being the norm.
Yet again, anon confuses progress with tech becoming generally used.

Anonymous at Thu, 13 Jun 2024 18:35:09 UTC No. 16233046

>>16233006
It feels more like a cultural change, and not a good one.