Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Monday May 29 2017, @03:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-all-gone-to-bits dept.

From the RooshV Forum:

I constantly get the vibe from people that they think our technology is skyrocketing, that we're living in a new tech age, "where was all this ten years ago?!" etc.

But I disagree with this assessment of our technology. It has made steady improvements in one specific space: software and electronic hardware. That is all. On top of that, the improvements on the hardware have not even been ground breaking. GPS is a ground-breaking invention. Smaller screens are not: they are just an incremental improvement.

Smartphones are merely the result of incremental improvements in the size and quality of electronic components. The only breakthroughs involved are ages old. The invention of the transistor, the laser, etc. The existence of google, facebook, uber, and so on, are merely inevitable "new applications" stemming from these improvements. They are not breakthroughs, they are merely improvements and combinations upon the telephone, the directory, and the taxi.

In my opinion, technology as a whole is borderline stagnant.

A list of why technology is still shit:

The posting goes on to list examples of incremental, rather than breakthrough, changes in the areas of:

  • Electronics & Machines
  • Energy
  • Medicine
  • Clothes
  • Food
  • Finance

Have we really stagnated? Have we already found all of the "low-hanging fruit", so new breakthroughs are harder to find? Maybe there is greater emphasis on changes that are immediately able to be commercialized and less emphasis on basic research?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Monday May 29 2017, @04:25AM (1 child)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday May 29 2017, @04:25AM (#517004) Journal

    Why the hell does it take more than two seconds for my phone to turn on? I don't get it. The dam thing should be ready to run as soon as it gets power.

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by MadTinfoilHatter on Monday May 29 2017, @05:22AM

    by MadTinfoilHatter (4635) on Monday May 29 2017, @05:22AM (#517025)

    Why the hell does it take more than two seconds for my phone to turn on?

    Clearly it doesn't have enough systemd on it. The paralellism provided by this new paradigm of awesomeness leads to massively reduced boot times. It's been designed by an outstanding genius in the field, and was totally universally adopted on its technical merits alone. Oh and did I mention it makes systems boot fast?