It would have been more convincing if you had given real past examples rather than speculative future ones :)
Although I'm pretty sure there are plenty that many people can think of, so it doesn't really detract much from your point.
Although I'm pretty sure there are plenty that many people can think of, so it doesn't really detract much from your point.
Shoutout to 50 things that made the modern economy, a great podcast/book.
Language, standards, the internet, agriculture, glass, sunscreen, resilient rice, sterilization, human flight, spontaneous development of sentient life in the universe…
When you think about it all, you start to appreciate how miraculous things actually are.
https://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/rob/Courses/InformationInSpeech/C...
Regardless ... people's ignorance is showing. Too many never think about the fact that people just 200-100 years ago would have considered modern technology magic.
Imagine showing off to one of these people:
Omfg you're speaking into a flat rectangle!
Omfg it speaks back!
Omfg it shows pictures!
Omfg that box speaks!
Omfg that box speaks and shows people!
O M F G YOU GUYS FLY EVERY DAY???
WHAT DO YOU MEAN, SYPHILIS ISN'T AN ISSUE ANYMORE??? AND THERE'S A PILL PREVENTING PREGNANCY ???????????
It's absolutely amazing.
Rule-based societies predate the Romans by a lot of time ; Romans weren't even that good at it, considering how often violence was used as a political tool during the republic.
Wouldn't the Code of Hammurabi have preceded that by quite a few centuries?
That's not to say there's not a grain of truth in this perspective. My impression is that Romans were notable for their pioneering work in the field of what could best be described as "civic pride" - the sense that "civilization" represented progress, the idea of the state as a kind of collective project that elevates everyone and that we should all be proud to participate in. They probably weren't the first to think like this - history is long - but they were the last to do so in a largely secular fashion in the West for a long time, and certainly directly influenced the thoughts of the Enlightenment thinkers who eventually inspired the American Revolution.
S.P.Q.R.
The Code of Hammurabi is best understood as royal propaganda designed to portray Hammurabi as a just king. The famous stele starts with a graphic depiction of him receiving the royal rod and ring from Shamash, the sun god who was emblematic of truth and justice. The laws are best understood as a statement of the kind of justice Hammurabi wished to see done in his kingdom, not a set of rules.
Rule-based society is something different: when the Law itself has a power of it's own, stronger than power of any individual or group. It was first invented in Rome and provided them tremendous advantage, until started to crumble during the Long 3rd Century Crisis.
> You may wonder why we don’t use Roman concrete today if that is the case; well, one of the reasons as to why is because, although it gets stronger over time and withstands erosion from water, when this cement is still young and has not had time to develop its strength from seawater, it likely does not have the compressive strength to handle modern use.
https://www.forthvalleyconcrete.co.uk/the-differences-betwee...
Also, Roman concrete didn't contain rebar which is necessary in many modern applications and rebar rusts which reduces the overall lifespan of the structure.
That said, apparently Roman concrete has some potential issues in structures adjacent to bodies of saltwater since the saltwater would accelerate the strengthening process.
Sorry not sorry if I just subjected you to the same.
Auctions, GPS,
Postage stamp, video games,
Public key cryptography,
Shipping containers.
iPhone, pencil,
Clocks and contraceptive pill,
Passports, batteries,
Banking, antibiotics.
Double entry book-keeping,
Canned food, air conditioning,
Razors, solar cells,
Sanitary towels.
Retirement, printing press
And the Haeber-Bosch process
Infant formula,
Exchangeable parts.
Light bulb, concrete,
Sewing machine, spreadsheet,
S-bend, cold chain,
Insurance and dwarf wheat!GPS, disposable razor, many of these are not impactful enough to be "black swan but good".
And things like clocks and batteries were slowly refined over many, many years, so they don't fit either.
Don’t fall into the trap of reacting with “meh” to everything. Maybe you just don’t know? Maybe you don’t realise how much modern life depends on say, the Haeber-Bosch process or the shipping container? “Oh it’s just a metal box”, a person who doesn’t understand it might say.
How informative of you.
GPS does things better but we can do generally the same things without it.
Don't think about what would happen if we ripped out all GPS functionality overnight, think about what would happen if we had a decade to implement replacements.
The loss of accuracy wouldn't be that important.
> the Haeber-Bosch proces
That one's pretty great, it's probably worth including.
> or the shipping container? “Oh it’s just a metal box”, a person who doesn’t understand it might say.
Hmm, focus on cargo ships and you can see a pretty rapid revolution, but in a wider lens maybe it was more of a broad evolution. I'm not sure.
But my point was that the list was too long, not that it didn't have any valid examples.
It goes in depth on the introduction of the shipping container and how revolutionary it was. There was also a fair bit of legal wrangling to make it possible as well.
Not sure if that's black swan territory or not, but IMO it was a great piece of forward-thinking that made GPS useful beyond just the original military applications.
That sounds strange .. but .. there are many small corrections that need to be applied to "straight forward" triangulated fixing off of moving monuments (term from surveying), relativitic time shift being just one.
There are several recent HN threads about Kalman filters [e].
It's possible (and more or less roughly what already happens) to record GPS fixes against a fixed master station and compute the time series error twixt the naive computation and known location (or, indeed, mesh of locations across (say) Australia) and generate a Kalman filter to correct and return more precise positions for moving recievers in the mesh area.
Had we not been aware of relativity we very likely would have discovered it via the time slip 'error' terms in the correction filter.
In a similar manner we have improved our understanding for atmospheric wobble, continental drip [1], and other fine effects.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drip
[e] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastYear&page=0&prefix=fal...
As so often, the refinement of the technique makes it so widely available and effective that, without being revolutionary in principle, it becomes revolutionary in effect.
Telecommunications is like that. A century ago a telex from Australia to England could make it from desk to desk in under an hour. The Internet is not revolutionary in that sense. And yet it is revolutionary anyway.
I don’t know about that. Maybe it was. What I do know is that we have documented speculation about satelite based navigation the days right after the launch of Sputnik.
American scientist figured out the orbit of Sputnik independently from the Russians by measuring the dopler shift of the radio transmission with their radios. Then knowing where their radio is located they used an iterative optimisation process to identify the orbital parameters of the satelite. Immediately there they were talking about how if the orbit of the satelite were known they could use the same process backwards to fix their location. That was 21 years before the launch of the first GPS satelite.
Now, that is not exactly how GPS signals work, and with good reasons. But it is the first documented seed of the idea of satelite based navigation that I am aware of.
Source: https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/Content/techdigest/pdf/...
> And things like clocks and batteries were slowly refined over many, many years, so they don't fit either.
Everything started with a thought, or a discovery. What happens after is irrelevant. The event, that kicks off Dramatic Change(tm), is at the start.
> That's just a list of good inventions.
No. It isn't just a list of good inventions. Ignoring that it's not all inventions, you seem to lack the understanding of the impact. For example:
> Antibiotics
A discovery. It literally changed how humanity moves forward. One of the whitest swan moments in human history.
> public key cryptography
It took until 1975 for someone to figure this out and it changed how we exchange information, legitimize ourselves and deal with our privacy.
> contraceptive pill
The invention of the pill was an event that had massive impact on how Humanity moved forward.
> printing press
The invention of mass production of books lead to the first information explosion, dramatically changing humanity's future.
What you're doing here is mixing your ignorance of the impactfullness of some of the things on the list, with your own personal idea of what's "great", or however you want to call it.
Even if I agree that not everything on that list is equally meaningfull in terms of impact, some of them are really fucking high up the ladder, just like room temperature superconductors.
Clocks did not have an event that kicks off a dramatic change. We've had them for thousands of years. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.
I could see disagreement about batteries, but even then I feel like they were quite marginal for quite a while. A slow buildup is not a "black swan but good". There needs to be quite a lot of suddenness to it all.
And I didn't even mention the ones in the rest of your post so I don't want to argue those.
If you talked about all those because I said "list of good inventions", let me clarify. It's a list of "good or better inventions", mixing ones that qualify as 'black swan but good" with ones that don't.
> > public key cryptography
> It took until 1975 for someone to figure this out
Sketched out in 1874 as a concept by Jevons, firmed up (sans implementation) in 1970, first implemented in 1973 (classified for nigh on 30 years by the UK Govt).
First public example (of a different schema) was 1976.
Other examples worked out in 1974, not published until 1978. etc.
I have no great quibble here, 1975 is a good approximate ballpark figure but I wasn't sure which scheme you had in mind as it's almost the only year in the 1970s that nothing particularly significant happened in public key crypto.
wat
it's called a black swan because black swans are rare. white swans are quite common. discoveries with the impact of antibiotics are extremely rare.
what, exactly, do you think the term "black swan" means. and why do you think that?
I am wondering though what exactly you think "black swan event" means and why you think that since your post here makes it rather clear you don't understand what the term refers to or where it comes from either.
Black swans are not at all rare and a "black swan event" is not called that because of the rarity of black swans. It's called that because "black swan" was at one time used to refer to non-existent or impossible things in Europe then when Australia was discovered they found out black swans are actually extremely common, a very improbable event given the data available beforehand. It's the discovery of black swans that was unlikely, not black swans, and it's the unexpectedness of their discovery that is relevant to the "black swan" metaphor. [1]
If black swans were rare seeing one would not be a "black swan event" because it would be possible to predict that one could be seen, just not very often, thus not having the required characteristic of being unpredictable beforehand. So yes, despite their post being easily understandable, the person you responded to did use "white swan" incorrectly, but your correction is just plain wrong as well.
Please if you are going to be pedantic try to also actually be correct on what you're being a jerk about first.
Military without GPS would be blocked. Try navigating in jungle environments where everything is green and looks the same. I've experienced both with GPS and without, that was one heck of a game changer.
[1] https://qz.com/1106064/the-entire-global-financial-system-de...
ATMs may be designed to use super precise timstamps, but they don't need to be. At all.
The interesting timing constraints are between stock exchanges... but in those situations the speed of light is a bigger factor than clock drift, even if you're just using NTP, and you can't avoid speed of light delays/desyncs.
For stock exchanges you are absolutely correct. I remember many years ago paying so much extra for the fastest internet access and sub-second delay access to our local stock exchange. Even so it was still slower (lag) when compared to those with offices placed very close to the stock exchange building/infrastruture at that time.
Lead acid got us from, what 1940 to 2005? Something like that? But the utility of Lithium Batteries has blown what was already a gigantic market even wider open.
Consider how the days before passports also lacked air travel available to the masses. Even cars has only just started to become commonplace. I don't see how you could possibly have travel that is so cheap, quick, and accessible to such a large population without some way to control who is coming and leaving your country? Especially with how we're quickly making different parts of the planet inhospitable, and given how rapidly populations have risen compared to a century ago.
I don't think the passport is an invention itself, so to speak.
Travel like that was never "reserved" for explorers, missionaries or high ranking dignitaries. If you had the money/resources, you could go anywhere.
Now there is a "caste" system of countries that have Visa on Arrival, Free Entry, or Visa required where you have to prove that you are financially capable, or even wanted in the country, or promise not to work or be illegally employed/compensated.
And then that alongside many countries in the developing world that still have undocumented people, no birth certificate, no identification, no tax ID, etc.
How does a country verify someones birth? Especially if someone wasn't born in a hospital? In the west, until 1950's, mostly this was done via church records. Also, are you granted citizenship by birth or only through parents? (Big deal, especially for Puerto Rican births - or countries that don't recognize foreign births in their land, e.g. United Arab Emirates / Saudi Arabia - even Japan or China, where sure you can be born there, but that means absolutely nothing.)
So, no, it isn't really a greater system for international worldwide travel - it is a system of control to ensure someones identity is who they are and that the country they are form atleast certified to some standard that their name, their picture, their birth date, their location of birth are somewhat tangibly real.
And this isn't even getting into information sharing. The above is just a standard, that now is "machine" readable and has an RFID so that collection is more easier for the state.
Context is amazing, isn't it?
Why 1800s? Why not Roman times? All you had to do is state you were a roman citizen, and you could travel - Unimpaired “ Civis Romanus sum”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civis_Romanus_sum
Borders existed but travel was not impaired, how else do you think trade and commerce worked? Do you think supply chains are a new thing?
It very much sounds like you are conflating serfdom, as an impairment to free travel - it is a different exercise. Because you did have a king, and you were a farmer in that land and in many ways you had lesser rights than a slave.
The Roman Empire was a unique example among the thousands of years of history because along with their transportation network of roads they did actually have a couple of passport-like systems in place. Now a third of the people were literally slaves, so they definitely weren't going anywhere without permission, so maybe Rome is not a great starting point for what I presume to be the argument against passports. But the Romans and other Mediterranean civilizations did check your identity when you travelled. Romans had documents they called diplomas for people on official business and several civilizations used clay tablets called tesserae as a sort of ID card, but by far the most common method was simply having known people vouch for you.
Basically nowhere in the ancient world from the Middle East to the pre-colonial Americas could you just show up in a foreign village without people asking questions that you ought better have good answers for. There are a handful of exceptions, but this has never been the norm, and even with passports and visa restrictions it is definitely far easier today than it ever was in the past. I expect it will get easier and easier into the future. Perhaps quite soon in fact as the global population begins to decline and people become more and more valuable.
Passports are much older than that, but in pre-WWI Europe, most countries didn't require them for travel. (Russia and Turkey did.)
Passports certainly do have a dystopian element to them, especially if they are demanded too frequently / aggressively. But on their own, they aren't particularly evil; they just identify you much like your face does.
> Before WWI there were no passports and no need for them.
This combination of ignorance and confidence isn’t a good look.
So unless private collection of personal data is completely illegal, I’d rather have a centralised ID system instead
It's an interesting and thought-provoking list though.
You wouldn't say "Boeing 737" you'd say flight.
They're saying iPhone because it's attention grabbing. No other reason.
For some reason, I'm not entirely willing to believe that my parents (who are still alive) had a less happy life than I have even though they didn't grow up with an iPhone. And it's not like modern conveniences have no downsides (e.g. increase in stress). That's not to say I would give up on these things readily, I'm just way too used to them.
I think probably most people could agree that treatments for diseases that regularly also affect young / middle-aged peolle are a good thing. It's hard to argue that someone in the prime of their life should die of some silly infection.
Unless it's too comment on 'throwaway mentality', modern consumerism, etc., the book meaning 'made the modern economy' more literally/broadly than you're referencing it for here?
The first series is my favorite podcast of all time. They're short (~8 minutes, iirc) but pack a lot of interesting info in each episode. In particular, they explore some of the second-order effects of each invention.
The disposable razor might not be a true 'black swan' like the transistor or LK-99, but some of the background and influence around the invention might surprise you! I recommend checking it out. [1]
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Things_That_Made_the_Modern... [1] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p04t8k2l
Why is disposable razor on the list but not electricity, computing, refrigeration, metallurgy, microscopy, or eye glasses?
and you CAN imagine it : Viagra
Penicillin was the first highly effective AND mass producible antibiotic, though.
Or let me put it a different way: do you think the USSR did not have an industrial base?
And who do you think paid for the construction of the municipal sewer systems in American cities? Like in Chicago where the whole city was raised 4 ft to accomplish it[1].
[1] https://gizmodo.com/chicago-was-raised-more-than-4-feet-in-t...
> And who do you think paid
state resources are always a fraction of the gdp trough whatever form of taxation. larger industrial base means proportional less burden on the society. that is why for example urss imploded, taxation was too high and spent too wastefully on military budget to be sustainable long term, while usa could spend that money on the defense budget, infrastructure, et etc, while still being sutainable from the economy, because the industrial base was so much larger.
That is the whole game.
If we developed the will to sustainably mitigate its toxic by-products including plastic, that would be another nice black-swan for the future. Though it also won't be singular moment but a systemic change that is hard to notice.
Also, tea making was a huge sanitary step forward.
Even then, when ChatGPT came out it was a pretty big deal, due to the surprisingly sudden jump in capabilities, at least from the point of view of someone who didn't work in AI and didn't closely watch its progress.
According to Wikipedia, it was "the fastest-growing consumer software application in history, gaining over 100 million users" (in ~2 months).
Which actually highlights a problem in our society that we have to work to be able to afford living instead of living to be able to work on something more meaningful than earning money.
THESE are the companies wielding AI, but this time without nary a "do no evil" in their ethos, long expunged. They are wielding AI with dystopian surveillance and the inputs.
In the era where the Supreme Court has declared them immortal citizens with allegedly the same rights as a real human, except they can't be killed, they can't be imprisoned, they can hop jurisdictions with the filing of a document. They operate under citizens United so there are no limits to their influence on elections and politicians. They can "bribe" with speaking/speech fees. They gain tax breaks that a "real" human can't possibly imagine.
Do you trust Google, especially these days? Do you trust Microsoft, unrepentant sociopathic MBA monopolizers galore? Do you trust Amazon who reduce humans to robots, with the outright stated goal of replacing them someday and churn through human resources at rates that make the Soviet Army in WWII blush?
If a firearm is just a tool and its danger depends on the owner, who is brandishing AI-the-tool?
Uhoh.
More seriously AI has made lots of things better, it’s really the hype cycle that’s disappointing. More FPS in games just isn’t as exciting as self driving cars. But by the time you can buy a level 5 self driving car the technology will be pedestrian.
Nothing we have currently moves closer to that. Just doing more of the same of the current models will not get you there.
They're level 4 with very severe location and weather limits.
Creating a self driving car which can navigate a dark, rainy parking lot is something we do not know how. Not even in theory. You can't just throw more compute at it. You can't go from a Vickers Type 464 bomb -- one of the most complex bombs in WW II -- to the "Little Boy" by just putting more explosives in there.
Level 5 driving just means it can drive a child or blind person around who can’t take over in an emergency. That’s the difference between Little Boy and a Moab.
However current level 5 cars aren’t something a consumer would buy. A car that refuses to drive in 99% of situations isn’t marketable. The minimum threshold for that might be a car that can only drive in Hawaii, not a large enough market to pay for R&D, but still plenty use for a blind person living in the area.
No, that's what level 4 means. Level 3 can rely on having a driver to switch to, level 4 can't.
The difference between 4 and 5 is that 4 can park and give up under arbitrary circumstances, while 5 has to be able to keep going almost always.
Geofencing is part of the criteria, but a car that can only drive in the USA but can’t drive in Europe still qualifies as level 5.
Similarly a car that refuses to drive in a blizzard but can do everything else is level 5. Being able to drive at night or moderate rain is mandatory however.
That said, there is plenty of slightly different definitions thrown about. I am sure someone is going to argue a car needs to be able to drive in any country to qualify etc etc.
Edit: To be clear existing self driving taxi services aren’t level 5 services with existing restrictions, but the car is physically capable of much more than it’s being used for. It can operate at night and in the rain etc they are however being extremely cautious.
Level 4 cars need a steering wheel to be generally useful. But a limited vehicle like a taxi doesn't need a wheel, no matter whether it's 4 or 5.
I agree with the rest of what you said. Geofencing entire continents isn't about driving ability, and blizzards are an acceptable human-level restriction.
However it looks like this just changed: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2022-03/Final-Ru...
“For vehicles designed to be solely operated by an ADS, manually operated driving controls are logically unnecessary.29 To account for this, the NPRM proposed a regulatory scheme in which the affected standards would not assume that a vehicle will always have a driver’s seat, a steering wheel and accompanying steering column, or just one front outboard passenger seating position.”
They are apparently allowing level 4 Taxi to be considered full ADS even if they have additional “Stowed controls” options.
https://unece.org/DAM/trans/doc/2013/wp29grsp/WP.29-161-18e....
I do not recognise the reality you are in.
Navigating dark and rainy parking lots is not hard. At all. Not hard in theory, and not hard in practice either.
We have lidars which work very well in rain. We have cameras with excellent dynamic range. Parking lots are slow environments where everyone moves slowly and you are generally allowed to stop if you are suddenly spooked or need a bit more time to check things.
There are hard problems about self driving cars, but dark and rainy parking lots are not the stumbling block.
Where do you even get this idea?
Let me tell you two harder things about self driving cars: "How many nines do you want in your certainty that the car won't hit anyone?" and "How do you want that proven? With stats or with fault tree analysis, or a mix of both?"
You could have said the same thing 40 years ago.
In addition to this, Cities are more open to changing which rules cars should follow. The effects of climate change are more visible, and the effects of polluted air are better known.
When I say gradually, it's an euphemism, it's an _extremely_ slow process, but it's the global tendency here.
generally what's happening is a combination of:
* making pedestrian zones (i.e. banning)
* deny access to certain types / times (no vans, no old cars, etc.. i.e. also banning)
* reducing roads (i.e. 2 > 1 lane, thus reducing attractivity)
* raising driving prices (the congestion / air quality certificates you mention)
* reducing access to parking (remove places, make them more expensive, etc)When I was a kid in the 90's I already enjoyed electricity and electronics and I would play with those low power incandescent lightbulbs powered by 9V batteries. They would generate a lot of heat and very little light, to the point that it wasn't easy to tell if it was on when the sun was bright.
With a modern LED and the same setup you could generate enough light to blind yourself.
LEDs are genuinely revolutionary in a way everyone just kind of overlooks.
'Connections' (1978). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WoDQBhJCVQ
There hasn’t been a full scale war between major powers since.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-war-already-wit...
So I would argue they are either neutral or massive negative.
Yet all the major powers have launched multiple, lengthy full scale wars since.
Electric cars mainstream