SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday May 29 2017, @03:47AM (15 children)
All these incremental improvements in computing - speed and storage memory essentially - brought about one HUGE breakthrough: big data and AI. When I was a kid, the ability to process immense masses of data, let alone intelligently, was nonexistent. And then it happened. Not because it was "discovered", but because the incrementally better technology that subtends it suddenly reached a critical point beyond which theory became a practical proposition.
Only no-one saw it coming because it's all behind the scene. But think about it: before you had to type a very precise search string in your search engine of choice to get what you wanted. Then almost overnight, you could type something vaguely relevant and get exactly what you need too. Remember that? That's the tip of the big data iceberg.
The rest of the iceberg, sadly, is less people-friendly, as most of this particular breakthrough basically serves nefarious or greedy interests. But that's another issue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @03:55AM
AI and Big Data has been the focus of academic computing for nigh on half a century. I studied neural nets in an introductory AI course more than a decade ago—long before The Cloud or iPhone.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by archfeld on Monday May 29 2017, @04:32AM
the break through in big data hasn't really been 'big' data but the consolidation and analysis of all the separate pieces that have been gathering for quite some time. The constant corporate consolidation and erosion of any sort of morals or privacy considerations is one of the biggest drivers of that. I worked of huge Teradata clusters for several industry leading institutions that used to jealously guard the privacy of their data. Now they share it with anyone and everyone whether they mean to or not.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @06:20AM (1 child)
Yeah, author seems to miss that "breakthroughs" can only happen when there's the right mix of incremental improvements. The first computers were "only" incremental improvements over simpler relay circuits, relay circuits were "simply" applications of boolean algebra, and relays were "just" incremental improvements over manually pressing switches. You could even say the transistor was merely an incremental improvement on top of existing knowledge of physics and chemistry, there was no magic there. The first transistor-based computers were just rehashing relay and tube-based computers, and etching circuits from one piece of silicon was just an improvement in manufacturing efficiency. I imagine if the author was alive during the evolution of the modern computer, they would have thought it was stagnant shit the whole time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @07:16AM
Clearly, this qualifies:
15 Storey "Vending Machine" in Singapore Dispenses Ferraris, Lamborghinis, & Bentleys [inquirer.net]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @07:29AM
It existed, it's just that only "big labs" could afford it, much if it hidden away in the CIA etc.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 29 2017, @11:46AM (4 children)
Big data? This is what Big Data looked like ~1940:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2001/06/ibm-j27.html [wsws.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust [wikipedia.org]
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://intsse.com/wswspdf/en/articles/2001/06/ibm-j27.pdf
I have zero reasons to think that "big data" is a "good thing".
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @12:17PM (3 children)
> [wsws.org]
Unattended terminal? Or did _gewg_ hack into Runaway's account?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @01:16PM (2 children)
Another option might be, you know nothing about Runaway. Some people focus on some specific facet of a complicated person's persona, and they think they know that person. The title of this sub-thread offers a suggestion for you to read and think about:
http://www.constitution.org/col/blind_men.htm [constitution.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @03:03PM
Another option might be, Runaway was visiting _gewg_, forgot to log out, and _gewg_ posted without noticing. Another option might be, Runaway and _gewg_ are the same person.
(Score: 2) by sgleysti on Monday May 29 2017, @04:43PM
My money is on the above AC actually being Runaway saying, in essence, "I am vast; I contain multitudes."
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday May 29 2017, @12:07PM (3 children)
Really? It doesn't happen to me, it's still hard to get the info I think is relevant. Even a wee harder as the time passes. Which makes me search for alternative explanations.
Like, in the same time as big data, Facebook happened. And suddenly a new generation learnt to be happy with whatever crappy answers they get, be those answer only a little bit more unusual than the usual ads. And, boy, do they create a lot of crap nowadays or what? So, the old decrepit me have to sift this whole lot of garbage to find the info.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 29 2017, @01:22PM (1 child)
Maybe - just maybe - I'm carefully NOT making an accusation here - the new generations are shallow minded? They ask a question, they get some superfluous answer, and they are satisfied. "Why is the sky blue, Mommy?" "Because it is, Baby, now eat your peas and carrots, and let Mommy watch the soaps." Then again, maybe our own generation had plenty of shallow minded bubble heads - two out of three of my sons accept simple answers. The third isn't satisfied with simple, and digs into stuff. Maybe the proportion has changed, but I have to admit there are plenty of vacuous baby-boomers, and whatever the hell came after them.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday May 29 2017, @05:56PM
This and the relation to Facebook (as the easy way to get instant gratification in the form of cheap/meaningless likes) is the hypothesis I tabled.
Yeah-yeah... like I care enough to NOT accuse them. Their bed, they are the ones to sleep in it.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Tuesday May 30 2017, @12:31AM
And now, there are fewer and fewer search engines--general, mercantile, professional, or otherwise--that allow the execution of "precise search strings" and those even those few routinely have stripped out some core search functionality (disabling wildcards, or ignoring capitalization for Boolean search, for example).
Providers also have generally made it more difficult to even seek out their search syntax rules, as precise, focused searches tend to bypass those results they want to force you to see or those they are being paid to serve up to you.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 29 2017, @03:43PM
Yes, I remember when Google broke verbatim search and it stopped being a tool for serious research. There's absolutely no way to predict what nonsense it will display these days, even among the top search hits. Yes, you can still try to force it to actually use your search terms with the "allintext:" operator, but the subset of hits you get will still vary depending on stuff that shouldn't matter, like search term order. (Note I'm not saying the ranking merely changes; the actual complete list of hits that show up will vary for the same set of search terms.)
Don't get me wrong: Google is now a much more convenient tool for casual queries. It's utterly broken for serious research now, though. (And yes, there are other search engines that can restrict your queries in a more consistent fashion, but Google's database and ranking algorithms still make it superior -- if only it still allowed one to do "old timer" searches in a predictable way....)
So, no, new search algorithms are absolutely NOT better at delivering "exactly what [I] need." They're better at delivering something vaguely like what I might want if I'm not quite sure what I'm looking for.