And also it was a deep fake.
BTW This is the best sci-fi book ever.
BTW This is the best sci-fi book ever.
Definitely worth giving it a try if you're a programmer, just for the fact that it's written by another programmer: the opening scene where they find a bunch of rules written down and just follow them reminds me of ACPI; the discussion of public-key cryptography and shipping drives full of one-time-pad around the galaxy; the "compression scheme" with the video.
It’s certainly true that Vinge doesn’t spend much time on the engineering details, but I find him unusually clear on “imagine if we had this kind of impossible-now technology, but the rest of what we know about physics remained, how would people behave?”
He was, after all, a physics professor.
Rainbow’s End is much clearer on this than his distant future stuff, of course.
Actually, he was a mathematics and computer science teacher at San Diego State University.
Maybe it's not productive to quibble about definitions like this, but FWIW I don't agree with this criteria. I would argue Greg Egan's work, for example, is just about the "hardest" sci-fi there is, and yet much of that work takes place in universes that are entirely unlike our own.
Personally, I think what makes for "hard" sci-fi is that the rules of the universe are well-laid-out and consistent, and that the story springs (at least in some significant part) out of the consequences of those rules. That may mean a story set in the "future", where we have new technology or discover new physics, or "alternate universe" sci-fi like Egan's.
In defense of hard science fiction, it’s a meaningful category to talk about even if it’s not something you personally care about. People often want to weaken it but that just opens a door for a new category say “scientific science fiction” and we are back to square one.
Asking questions like what does AGI look like when they can’t just magically solve all issues can be fun. Hand waving the singularly as some religious event can also make interesting stories but so is considering how chaos theory limits what computation can actually achieve.
Greg Egan's law changes are on the level of "I consulted with a bunch of theoretical physics professors and asked them what the implication of tweaking this one fundamental constant would be, then I spent years meticulously crafting a world that takes into account those implications, and I had others physics professors check over my work to make sure it was within the bounds of actuality, and then I wrote a story about characters in this new world."
> Asking questions like what does AGI look like when they can’t just magically solve all issues can be fun.
Greg Egan actually has a great book about this! Permutation City. CPU cycles aren't unlimited, and there are tons of ethical problems being confronted with the entire "simulate a person" thing.
the laws of the universe in Harry Potter are so fickle and ever changing with the plot line that to me, it can only be considered soft. compare with Egan who takes a given cosmology and then works 100% within that world. that's hard.
Consider The Martian, early versions where posted online and the author changed what resources the character had to work with at the beginning. So what feels like a creative solution to limited resources was really giving the character exactly what they needed after a solution was found. Only examining a work we can’t distinguish ‘soft’ physics updated as the plot demands from a story based around fixed rules.
One of the more interesting science fiction short stories I read seemed to have very inconsistent time travel, but on closer reading you find the two different methods involved had two different sets of rules. It’s easy to say something is inconsistent, but any possible story has a corresponding set of rules that work.
It’s rather similar to considering what characters may have been lying in a story.
> but on closer reading
does not make the inconsistencies go away, but they multiply.
Again based on specific assumptions. The universe of possibilities includes very strange places.
that's an unjustified assumption.
If nothing else pure randomness is a unsatisfying possibility as is a full branching search of every possible state for a universe.
It’s common for the rules of the universe to be adapted to fit the plot of random Star Trek episodes.
HP is not considered science fiction because of the trappings of the story. People use spells and enchanted objects for telekinesis, teleportation, and time travel not psychic abilities and technology to do the same things.
> critically examine its own premise
A great deal of science fiction doesn’t do that while plenty of fantasy does.
You don’t claim to be definitive?
So it’s not universal but is an accepted definition that any deviation from the possible or probable (for example, including faster-than-light travel or paranormal powers) to be a mark of "softness."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science_fiction
Popular science fiction is generally extremely soft, but occasionally you get stuff like The Cold Equations where the plot is driven by real world constraints. Even then it included FTL so a purest would call it soft.
That award goes to Greg Egan who has full list of citations on his website for each of his novels, as well as a list of mathematicians and physicists he requested help from.
If you want to read books that occasionally delve into pages of equations, Greg Egan is the author for you! (Seriously though, really good books, and the implications of his "what-ifs" are pretty damn cool)
The short stories "Luminous" and "Dark Integers", the novels "Diaspora" and "Schild's Ladder". So good.
qntm (another author) hits somewhat similarly.
On the other hand I think both books developed ideas wonderfully and there are bits of them I keep coming back to, even if I'll probably never reread them