1910: The year the modern world lost its mind
derekthompson.org
derekthompson.org
More than half of people in big American cities lived overcrowded -- that is, >2 people in a room, INCLUDING KITCHENS! Many rented just a bed for half a day! They slept, and the other half the other person, who worked in night shift, slept on it.
In big cities, the traffic in the streets, with horse carriages riding on cobble stone, and cars, started at 6:00 and lasted till midnight. Steam locomotives made a lot of noise and smoke. That's cortisol, lower immunity, more other consequences.
And bear in mind, not everyone had electricity, not to speak of central heating. You had lots of chimneys everywhere. Not everyone had sewer, tap water and so on. I guess, a good deal of these people migrated to cities from more quiet places, and since there was no notion of harmful environment.
We tend to be surprised why modernism got so much traction, and even the best architects hated cities (e.g. Frank Lloyd Wright, who wrote something like "a city plan is a fibrosis"), but the reasons were everywhere, real and brutal.
So I'm pretty sure the reason for people being nervous, is quite physical, not "people were scared", as you may conclude from the article (although this is not explicitly stated).
[EDIT] Forgot about the social environment. When you move to a big city as an adult, without the college/university to give you social fabric, you're quite lonely. And in big cities this fabric was getting thinner with urbanization. And you're short on money, can afford only a bed, and count every cent. I think it's a more serious reason to get neurotic than times changing too rapidly.
This is not unheard of for south Asian immigrants in European cities, which typically do hard, low paid work (car cleaners, gig economy delivery "partners" etc).
All that for what ? So people can order take away in Berlin from a place that's 10 minutes away from them by bike, because they clubbed too hard last night. And the profit finds its way to America (doordash owns Wolt).
But at least people are getting paid right? The alternative is people staying in their hometown and not making any money.
Regarding unemployment in people's hometowns, unfortunately this is not a problem that can be solved with shitty jobs. Even if xxx people find a shitty job, there will be 100*xxx people left over.
We all want to talk the investor/capitalist game, but nobody wants to recognize the fact the world we're in Washington built on much greater levels of competition, less consolidation, and more fiscal risk/insecurity. .arguably, in capitalism, it seems to me that the velocity of money is most important, and we've got massive amounts of it bottlenecked at the top of the pyramid instead of at the bottom where the actual organic distributed optimizers are.
That's already going to increase anxiety dramatically amongst users, let alone the rest of society walking around in extremely crowded cities where a sizable chunk of the population was completely coked out of their minds at any given moment.
The assassination of the archduke was like flipping a light switch in a house saturated with gas. Austria declares war to Serbia, which is defended by Russia, so Germany has to declare war to Russia; Germany expects France to join Russia so they declare war to France, but their battle plans to conquer France require passing through Belgium. The UK needs Belgium to remain neutral, so they declare war to Germany... and so on. Once the wheels are in motion, and everyone is ready for war, war just happens - whether coke is there or not.
[0] https://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/preview-world-war-speed/433...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_and_culture_of_substit...
[2] https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127...
https://www.amazon.ca/Blitzed-Norman-Whiteside-Shaun-Ohler/d...
They say Hitler was very charismatic, inspiring and a great public speaker. I seriously wonder how much drugs he was on at the time and how much that boosted and projected his own confidence (and then subsequently inspired all of his fellow countrymen Germans)?
With Germany having major role in both modern drug history (e.g. Merck with morphine and cocaine, Bayer with Heroin) and their decisive role in the beginning of WW1, I think it is legitimate to ask if substance abuse had role in the hawkishness of German leadership.
Quick Google indicates that there is no strong evidence for Wilhem II themselves using significant amount of drugs, but less is known about the other high officials and generals.
(Not to say that any other nation's leaders were models of wisdom and responsibility.)
I saw a fascinating documentary addressing the fact that the 3 primary leaders of the belligerents in WWI were competitive cousins - amazing that Nicky, George and Little Willi all knew one another as children! And yes, the analysis was that Wilhelm felt excluded and was never very mature - sorry I don't remember the documentary title but there is a summary of the facts here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/cousins_...
For a war to start, you need 3 things: materiel, political support, popular support. In 1914 both the Central Powers and the Entente had all 3 criteria satisfied. The war ended when the Central Powers ran out of popular support for the war.
Cocaine exports then vs. now: early 20th century legal exports at their peak(1921 - 30 tons) were roughly 1/20 to 1/30 of current illicit production.
At the time most coca production was for local consumption, far less was aimed at the international recreational market.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037687169...
Not to say there were not other drugs on the market, like Morphine
I suspect the numbers you're citing are subject to a large number of biases - different demand/utilization in different areas, considering mass without purity, poor recording keeping and/or off the book deals, and so on.
Way more people are using it now than then.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8473543/ https://recovery.org/cocaine/history
The source for the 200k/0.3% claim is a lengthy chain that eventually leads to this [1] book which then makes that claim by simply stating that the American Pharmaceutical Association said so, in 1902. A primary source for that, so far as I can find, does not exist, and my web fu is pretty decent. So if we just assume that this was said, how was this measured? And were the ulterior motivations? For instance cocaine's widespread usage in tonics and various pharmaceuticals would obviously create a major interest in a pharmaceutical trade group greatly downplaying its negative effects (including addiction) as much as possible. The 'safe and effective' of a different time.
The book also mentions that the primary addicts were "middle class genteel women." And so if that number was ever stated, I expect it was simply representing the group that actively sought treatment for addiction, which is obviously not exactly meaningful. Note also that you're comparing a potentially lowballed figure of addiction to a potentially highballed figure of usage.
[1] - https://archive.org/details/hepcatsnarcspipe0000jonn/page/25...
If you have those numbers, then you have a point.
Because taking a once daily extended release 25mg Adderall is very different from taking recreational amphetamines or cocaine.
LMAO is this most houses where I live in New Zealand. Smoke coming out of chimneys for people to keep warm, often burning coal. They have electricity of course but it's too expensive to heat their houses.
But yeah, just pointing out how backward my country is. Maybe we'll reach 1940s US smog levels eventually.
I do like to imagine future generations looking back on the era of the internal combustion engines with absolute horror.
"You won't believe this, but for like 200 years, any time a person wanted a machine to move stuff, those apes would carry around tens of gallons of some crazy toxic combustible fluid which they'd spray into a heavy block of metal then bung 20,000 volts of electricity through it to make it explode. Just to spin a wheel! Then they'd pump the poisonous fumes out from the rear of the machine like a cloud of evil flatulence. Into the same air they breathed! There were literally billions of these machines all over the planet. Everyone owned one! There was so much of it, the planet started getting hotter! It was crazy!!"
Here's one for you: There's a 10–15% chance, even barring radical life extension tech, that I'll live long enough to see the moon completely disassembled by von Neumann replicators.
There's several things that it depends on which are TRL 1-3, but are known to be at least theoretically possible. Based on how long it takes to get other things from TRL 1 to working device, I think it's most likely to take longer than my current remaining life expectancy even to be even odds, but not by such a large margin as to be infinitesimal odds.
> we can't even build self assembling macroscopic machines
TRL-1 tends to imply such statements :)
… although, is that actually true? For macroscopic, I mean? Given factories exist and robot arms are part of them, are you sure nobody has used a robot arm to assemble an identical robot arm from a pile of robot arm parts? I've not heard of anyone actually doing so, but are you sure that's never been done?
This can only be done if the VN machines are able to form a useful cloud away from the moon immediately after they've disassembled the surface layer. If they aren't allowed to do that, it would take 415 millennia: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=1.244e29+J+%2F+%281kW%2...
But you can make it twice as fast by getting the first layer to lift the second layer to cislunar orbit, then combine the power of both layers; then four times as fast etc. etc.
I don't know the upper limit before the main constraint is cooling.
We could game this out and figure out exactly what a rational bet is, but you get my point. It seems very hard to believe you think there is a 10-15% chance. Those are probabilities at which you would be making major moves to hedge.
I said "10-15%" of the moon being disassembled in my (current natural) lifetime, as in the break-even point for a bet is me spending $20 today for a chance you pay me $133-$200 on my deathbed. (I don't expect you to want to do that just because your odds for this are even lower, so you'd only want to take the other side of a 1:10 payout ratio if you thought it was 90% likely to be disassembled, the point is the breakeven point for positive expected returns is return ≥ cost * probability even before time discounted value of money and why would I want more money when I die).
As for hedging, isn't that normally done for negative outcomes? If so, what's the downside here?
A VN replicator on the moon is unambiguously harder than one on Earth (existence proof: life only found on one of them), so if the D6-to-D10 dice roll says "success!" for the moon, the mere existence of the tech will also radically transform what money even means down here on earth.
Surely the hedge to make against it is what to expect if we don't maintain the current rate of tech development that makes such an outcome even this likely? And the hedge for that looks somewhere between "prepper" and "political economist"?
Not by itself. I basically agree with your broader point, of course, but on this particular detail, if someone's goal is to turn the moon into something like a Culture Orbital with the Earth at the centre*, the overall momentum of the system doesn't need to change.
* Or the old barycentre at the centre. This is also a terrible idea, please don't do this. Apart from anything else, mistakes are inevitable and large chunks of moon/O will rain down on us.
Imagine if we ate and drank out of lead paint containers constantly for decades before discovering their health impacts. That's basically what has happened with plastics.
Some may have real symptoms, but the cause is something else inside or outside them.
Turns out, back in 2016 a German study[0] has found damage to trees near the towers—starting on the side of the tree facing the tower, then spreading to the entire tree.
This study, of course, does not show whether that measurably harms humans, but I stopped thinking those fears and complaints are completely unfounded.
I don't know what you have to do to get a link on PubMed, but it definitely isn't much.
[0] Although I have not seen anyone in this thread tell me that this paper is false—it was mostly appeal to author’s preexisting reputation—I’m taking it at face value.
(Basically, everyone was even more chronically online during the lockdowns, so there was extra money to be made and extra urgency in rolling out telecommunications infrastructure.)
While I wouldn't subscribe to standing in front will cook you idea, opening the door prematurely does give off radiation. Standing in front of a microwave beam dish may be a different story - knew an ex-Telecom tech who told a possibly tall tale of cooking chicken.
https://theconversation.com/how-we-found-the-source-of-the-m...
There are several places in Britain (and elsewhere, I imagine) where beam engines have been preserved and are periodically run using live steam. the engines themselves are quiet by modern standards, though I believe the machinery they drove often produced a racket.
There are confounding factors of course, like direction and what's in between. E.g. do you sleep in a room that's on the opposite side of the house with windows closed and good insulation/windows? You'll probably be totally fine.
Do you sleep in a room that's towards the source and with the window open? Oh you will very very much hear that train, especially if the wind is coming from that direction.
Sleeping outside? Oh you will very much hear that train!
The pump it drove could have been loud, though.
You get the same effect over a smaller area with vibratory compactors used in construction. Get the frequency just right and the whole neighborhood can feel it.
Sure, positive mindset is important, but it can only take you so far when northern wind makes you cough because there is a dozen factories out there, or when you are chronically sleep-deprived because a noise source you might not even know exists switches on at ungodly hours.
Low-frequency sound waves can be brutal. Something can just happen to resonate where you are, but meters away everything is fine. To make things even more interesting, go low enough and you might not actually be hearing it per se, but feeling it with your body. Good luck explaining it to people who can enact change.
Relatedly, Benn Jordan investigated[0] certain sound that some refuse to believe is real yet others suffer from.
However—since you mention getting out of your (presumably otherwise quiet?) house onto the street—I also encountered a phenomenon in which presence of subtle other noise (which in your case could be tree leaves rustling and so on, and in my case was a literal white noise machine) make a sound that in a completely quiet room would drive me insane significantly less of a problem. This is not to say “it is all in your head” because, well, how you perceive it is what matters at the end of the day.
Hopefully your bass player neighbour could understand and use headphones or practice at a different time.
I'm certainly not the only one in my neighborhood who would go postal if I had to live in a "quite" neighborhood where people complain about the noise each other's landscaping services make and call the cops when parties run late.
Turned out it was one particular ferry in the harbor. It was a smallish catarmaran fast ferry and when it was coming in a curved path it was like a narrow beam of infrasound funnelled between the hulls swept around and rattled our place 5km away. It took quite a while to notice the pattern, but was a great party trick to see it coming and predict the rattle to guests.
Apparently it leaked to much water into the ground nearby that shocks were transmissible. Whenever a heavy lorry/truck drove along that road late at night, it would shake the building a little and rattle plates in the same way.
When they finally fixed it (after the road got beautifully resurfaced by the council, then dug up 3 days later by...Thameswater) presumably the water fell down into the water table and we've not had any shaking since.
Sadly the memories of having worked with the machines persists
Unsurprisingly, this disturbs many people's sleep.
Moving outside of cities doesn't even solve the problem because low frequency noise travels for miles, highways go everywhere, and aircraft are inescapable.
And the EPA has simply abandoned any attempt to regulate noise pollution.
Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hum
'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze; He turned away the good old horse that served him many days; He dressed himself in cycling clothes, resplendent to be seen; He hurried off to town and bought a shining new machine; And as he wheeled it through the door, with air of lordly pride, The grinning shop assistant said, "Excuse me, can you ride?"
"See here, young man," said Mulga Bill, "from Walgett to the sea, From Conroy's Gap to Castlereagh, there's none can ride like me. I'm good all round at everything as everybody knows, Although I'm not the one to talk - I hate a man that blows. But riding is my special gift, my chiefest, sole delight; Just ask a wild duck can it swim, a wildcat can it fight. There's nothing clothed in hair or hide, or built of flesh or steel, There's nothing walks or jumps, or runs, on axle, hoof, or wheel, But what I'll sit, while hide will hold and girths and straps are tight: I'll ride this here two-wheeled concern right straight away at sight."
'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that sought his own abode, That perched above Dead Man's Creek, beside the mountain road. He turned the cycle down the hill and mounted for the fray, But 'ere he'd gone a dozen yards it bolted clean away. It left the track, and through the trees, just like a silver steak, It whistled down the awful slope towards the Dead Man's Creek.
It shaved a stump by half an inch, it dodged a big white-box: The very wallaroos in fright went scrambling up the rocks, The wombats hiding in their caves dug deeper underground, As Mulga Bill, as white as chalk, sat tight to every bound. It struck a stone and gave a spring that cleared a fallen tree, It raced beside a precipice as close as close could be; And then as Mulga Bill let out one last despairing shriek It made a leap of twenty feet into the Dead Man's Creek.
'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that slowly swam ashore: He said, "I've had some narrer shaves and lively rides before; I've rode a wild bull round a yard to win a five-pound bet, But this was the most awful ride that I've encountered yet. I'll give that two-wheeled outlaw best; it's shaken all my nerve To feel it whistle through the air and plunge and buck and swerve. It's safe at rest in Dead Man's Creek, we'll leave it lying still; A horse's back is good enough henceforth for Mulga Bill."
The Sydney Mail, 25 July 1896.
And it’s about bicycles.
Fascinating.
Especially when basically the same thing could happen with a horse.
This was in the 1930s.
https://www.amazon.com.au/Mulga-Bills-Bicycle-Deborah-Niland...
This is during the 'bicycle craze' of the 1890s. The safety bicycle was gaining in popularity at that time. A 'safety' bicycle is what you and I think of as a bicycle with two wheels that are the same size and a chain drive. Bicycles before that would refer to penny-farthings and chainless devices too - that's how ubiquitous the 'safety' bicycle became, we don't even know of the other versions as bicycles today.
Part of that bicycle craze in much of the world was the buildout of paved roads. Before this craze it was all cobblestones and dirt roads, with a little bit of paved ones. Due to many people wanting a smoother ride for their bicycle, many governments began paving roads. Granted it wasn't really well paved, that would take the invention of cars, but towns and cities would pave at all.
And lastly, this safety bicycle craze would lead to the invention of flight. Orville and Wilber Wright were kinda hipster bicycle mechanics that stuck around and became vintage bicycle mechanics (to borrow current terms). With their shop and light weight minded mechanical knowledge they applied themselves to the problem of flight. And wouldn't you know it, they solved it. I also want to shout out Charlie Taylor [0] here. He was the guy who made the engine for the Wright Flyer. He was one of these guys, coming out of the bicycle craze, that you'd find in the Gilded age that could, like, invent anything. Reading history in the period, these geniuses were seemingly everywhere. I don't know what was going on then, but there was something about that time where you get mechanical geniuses in every little town all over the globe.
What I don't understand about this history is why anyone ever thought the penny-farthing design was a good idea.
The pedals directly turned the wheel, and a larger wheel got you more distance per turn. If you've ever watched someone on a unicycle you can see how much effort a small chain-less wheel requires.
I remember reading the book in the mid to late 2000s and it felt so "current" in describing events of the day e.g.
- local newspapers were basically crushed by "international news" that arrived immediately
- the rate of commerce rapidly accelerated as people could communicate instantly around the world
- financial markets were impacted by the "low latency trading" of the day thanks to financial news being sent via telegraph.
- there is even a section about lawyers debating if contracts and marriages could be signed over the telegraph (like this on in particular as this was a debate in the early ecommerce days)
I was then shocked to find that it has been published in the 1990s. Really is a reminder that "new" technologies are often just updated versions of old technologies.
(NOTE: the link above takes you to a later edition)
Conservatives. I hear conservatives saying this. That’s the wild part. In my teens the conservatives would have given anything for what they’re whining about now.
I don’t know how true this fun recession is. The stats say there’s a kernel of truth to it but it’s being exaggerated, and if you talk to young people they say it’s as much about the high cost of anything as digital distraction. It’s become crazy expensive to do things in the real world.
Meanwhile if they know you can't afford to do anything other than get into trouble somewhere then your parents aren't inclined to give you a ride, so instead you sit at home on your phone.
I suspect that's because what they [0] overtly asked for was not what they actually desired. The true desire was to be obeyed, for their teens to eagerly mold themselves onto stated parental-priorities, disassociating with peers their parents had a bad feeling about, etc.
In other words, control, rather than outcomes.
[0] Here, I'm treating "conservative parents" as a persistent group identity, even though individual membership changes over the decades. The ocean-wave exists even when it's not the same water molecules, etc.
Are you complaining about 'conservatives theses days'?
If there is a wild part at all then it isn't that 'they' are saying it, but what we came to view as conservative.
In a couple of years you might find yourself in that whining bucket.
"Kiddo, every generation thinks they invented sex and fast music."
Ours are jealous of bygone music etc, but on the whole kids treat each other so much better now, I am jealous of that part for them. YMMV of course.
40+yy ago, HIV was still a death sentence, lung cancer slid to the 3-4th position in CODs caused by cancer. Late 90s saw the introduction of gene therapies. New drugs for diabetes and heart disease came to the market. These aren't small incremental QoL improvements; these advancements saved millions of lives since then.
All this progress should be celebrated, not trivialized
It's much more noteworthy to me how little medicine has changed than how much.
"We haven't cured diabetes" (only made massive strides in control and management and came up with whole new classes of drugs that attack root causes). "We haven't cured cancer" (except the ones we have cured, the ones we came up with vaccines to prevent (HPV), and came up with all sorts of innovative and less unpleasant treatments extending lifespan with less side effects), "Haven't cured blindness or deafness" (except for the types we have cured).
And haven't cured death...well, I guess you got us there.
But, yeah, it's low hanging fruit from the anti-science playbook to focus on what hasn't been done, and pretend that means nothing has been done.
“We can’t fix most damage to any organ so follow a lifestyle that minimizes it” is not a meaningful medical advance IMO.
It's not a sound assumption that everyone must either be "impressed by the progress of medicine within my lifetime" or "anti-science".
Good comment until here. This is a strawman.
There is a huge gap between the vision of what medical advances might have brought us with technological breakthroughs and what has actually materialized.
Cloning and stem cell research was supposed to let me grab a new organ whenever I needed it. Instead I’m still waiting for a poor person to get in a car wreck and be declared brain dead so they can scoop out whatever is useful.
Cancer is still killing half of my family members, just different kinds after a cancer breakthrough helped them with an earlier kind. Others are hit by strokes, heart failures, and the occasional horrific Alzheimer’s.
50 years I’ve heard doctors saying “it was just their time” as an excuse for some old person dying. The field barely has a grasp on human biology and we’re barely making inroads.
This is oft-repeated but it doesn’t pass the smell test. All it takes is a single principled academic to blow the whistle if there was any active suppression of cures or even research on cures.
In order for that quip to hold water, literally everyone involved in medical research would have to be a corrupt monster maintaining a worldwide conspiracy to keep sick people coming back for more treatments.
We are actually working on vaccines for viruses and for cancer.
One theory I have for this is that younger people are taught by teachers, when they are at an impressionable age, to revere the smartphone as the pinnacle of human achievement.
To me, the smartphone impressed me for a couple years, but it's just one of many miracles of miniaturization I've lived through - and less qualitatively different than, for example, personal computers or the GUI or the internet going public.
My father noticed a similar phenomenon with Rock n Roll. People younger than him saw it as a musical sea-change, but to him it just sounded like the boogie woogie music the radio already had been playing for a decade.
Back in my day, we had a separate (wired) telephone, a camera, a notepad, paper maps, a walkman, and a million other things. Now I just have a phone and it can do all that and lots more.
It's a convenience to carry around one smart phone instead of a dumb phone, a digital camera, and an iPod... but today that fills me with no more wonder than the advent of any of those three devices on their own.
Not only are they absolutely miraculous, but they're commodity products that make the miracle seem routine and mundane.
These days the smartphone doesn't fill me with awe anymore the same way many earlier and even subsequent inventions still do.
It's possibly because I could carry on quite easily without a smartphone. The greater loss would be for me to live without a mobile phone (of any variety), a computer, or a portable music player.
Wasn't the first iPhone basically just an iPod with a sim card?
I mean smart phones are a great achievement, but they were an incremental improvement, nothing to be blown away by?
Listen to the audience reaction when he shows how you scroll a list view: https://youtu.be/VQKMoT-6XSg?si=OmbgSG7nmEpdAETl&t=970
It's the other way around. The iPod touch (introduced September 2007) was basically an iPhone (announced January 2007) without the phone part.
> I mean smart phones are a great achievement, but they were an incremental improvement, nothing to be blown away by?
Feature phones ("dumbphones"), even ones with cameras or music player functionality, were and are extremely limited compared to smartphones like the Palm Treo, which was basically a pocket-sized, wireless internet-connected computer with a much larger, color screen, OS and GUI, installable apps, and a tiny (but usable) keyboard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Treo
Phones using DoCoMo's i-mode (which took off in Japan starting in 1999) were sort of a bridge between feature phones and smartphones. i-mode will finally shut down in 2026.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-mode
Smartphones also generally looked very different pre-iPhone and post-iPhone.
> "What we had suddenly looked just so . . . nineties," DeSalvo said. "It's just one of those things that are obvious when you see it."
https://www.engadget.com/2013-12-19-when-google-engineers-fi...
Oh, thanks, I got my history the wrong way round!
No, the iPods that were like iPhones (iPod Touch) were after the iPhone, not predecessors. The main iPod at the time of the iPhone introduction ("iPod Classic") had a small, non-touch screen in the top area of the face (except, most of the face taken up by the physical "click wheel" control, and a hard disk for storage, and other immediately pre-iPhone iPod's were basically scaled down versions of the same design (with Flash memory on, IIRC, the Nano and Shuffle, and no screen on the Shuffle.)
Probably over-analyzing this, but I can see why this might happen:
1. There's an ulterior motive of getting them to treat it safely, as it's one of the more-expensive and breakable things they might be carrying around, and they become obstreperous if it is unavailable.
2. It's probably the most immediate and tangible candidate. They probably aren't going to be around MRI scanners or cryo-cooled qubits or whatever.
Whereas if you've never used a PC, a phone is a black box. You tap the screen and it mysteriously does things. You're discouraged from trying to figure out how or make any changes to it yourself.
And if it's magic you better be careful because who knows what'll happen.
In terms of risk-taking (rather than knowledge) IMO the opposite has happened: Older generations had to worry about voiding the warranty because you held down the two buttons at the same time that the manual clearly told you never to do on page 37.
In contrast, younger folks have grown up with cheaper devices with much-improved idiot-proofing. That makes the strategy of "try shit until it seems to work" a lot more viable.
Meanwhile, older folks look on, seeing confident action and misinterpreting it as competent understanding, woefully concluding that "Unlike myself, kids these days just know computers."
That was never really a thing though. To begin with, warranties are generally pretty worthless because they cover exactly the things that don't usually happen. Power switch doesn't work one day out of the box? Covered, but unlikely to happen and probably not hard to fix yourself anyway. Dropped it and broke it? Not covered. Device is three years old and the battery is flat? Warranty is already expired.
If you haven't needed a warranty in the first month you probably won't need it at all.
> In contrast, younger folks have grown up with cheaper devices with much-improved idiot-proofing. That makes the strategy of "try shit until it seems to work" a lot more viable.
Except that the idiot-proofing is that if something is broken, you get a message that says "an error occurred" and there's no way to fix it because the brokenness is in an app you can't modify or is running on a server you don't control.
Meanwhile mashing buttons at random is more dangerous than ever because your whole life is in that device and it will readily transfer real money or send private files to people you don't want to have them or give attackers access to your accounts on various services.
From the perspective of my childhood, technology (cars, planes, phones & faxes, rockets, computers, refrigerators and other household appliances, rock music, radio, movies, television, science fiction & fantasy, the machinery of war, factories, farming, medicine, etc) were all elements of society that had advanced in technological progress, but had "always been there". I, of course, knew that there was a world before all that - my great-grandfather, who lived into his 90s and whom I got to know well, had driven a stagecoach as a teenager - but all of those had entered something like their modern form during or in the immediate aftermath of WWII, and to me it seemed like there had been progress, but not systemic change, in all the time since. It helped that all the adults around me largely saw WWII as the defining event of modern history. There was "before the War" and there was "now" (which came after the war).
Partly that was result of being born at the right time - the space program was in full swing, computers were a staple of fiction and large business but no more, the counterculture had come and gone, etc. The world really seemed like a timeless place to me as a child, and then about the time I reached adulthood, the Cold War ended, and the Internet Era arrived, and the world changed (and continued to change).
https://www.pbs.org/video/jfk-breaking-the-news-d7borr/
Similarly, CNN essentially became the mainstay with live coverage of the start of Desert Storm in '91.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Gulf_War
The Railway Journey: The Industrialization of Time and Space in the Nineteenth Century" by Wolfgang Schivelbusch
It’s about how if you think about distance as spacetime, that trains moved cities closer together by making the distance between them shorter. They shrink the world.
The Ghost of the Executed Engineer" by Loren Graham
About how Soviet era projects thought they could throw pure labor at massive scale engineering problems to overcome any problem, to their detriment.
For instance, it tells the possibly apocryphal story of how the telephone allowed male suitors to call reach young women directly and thereby bypass both protective parents and long-time traditional romantic competitors. Getting a phone call was so exceptional that people had not yet built up any social defenses for it.
- Bailey, Beth L. (1988). From Front Porch to Back Seat. Johns Hopkins University Press. - Henry, O. (1906). "The Unfinished Story". The Four Million. McClure, Phillips & Co.
The above url resolves to the following (which I have rendered safe/non-clickable by slightly mangling the url with “[.]” in place of “.”):
https://www.amazon[.]com/dp/B07JW5WQSR?bestFormat=true&k=the...
Here is a non-referral link to the same product page:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07JW5WQSR
The book has its own Wikipedia page, which would have been a non-commercial option, which would lessen any potential conflict of interest:
Super well written and very cool to read about not just the technology side of telegraphy but the culture as well, and how it still roughly mirrors culture found when the book was written all the way up till now.
Unfortunately the stories of success of the modern world were written by the modern world. So what we call as success or progress is only valid in modern world. There is no language or terms that can describe success and agreed upon across these two worlds.
For example, you may be able to wipe out that tribal population within minutes. But that may not mean success or progress, in terms of adaptation to the surroundings. Dinosaurs also ruled the land with their might. But adaptation is something different from being mighty. The context can get much more mightier against you.
Most of scientific and industrial advances were made by people who have no survival struggles and who were greedy for money or reputation. A lot of it was not needed for human adaptation and evolution.
While I think that is a profound insight that we should contemplate a lot more than we do instead of taking our value system (the one we all share, not only the ones we disagree with) for granted, I can't help also contemplate how inadequate, or underdeveloped, our language is as a tool to identify such. Hopefully, some day we will have more value-neutral means to properly view the relative isolated conceptual bubbles from which each culture views another. We're not there yet.
Which ones? Or is it just romantic conjecture?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples
The poster also says about how we could wipe a remote tribe out in minutes. Something similar has been in the news recently with an AI angle: https://thethaiger.com/news/world/chatgpt-leak-exposes-plot-...
You'll notice that the comment began by saying "let's compare" but then no actual comparison was made; nothing was actually said about the reality of these peoples' lives, they were simply reduced to a rhetorical device.
For instance one hypothesis for one of the most devastating mass extinction events was mass volcanic eruptions. The volcanos don't kill you, usually, but they blot out the sky which not only sends temperatures plummeting but kills all plantlife, which then rapidly kills anything that depended on those plants and on up the food chain. Another hypothesis for another mass extinction event was an unfortunately directed gamma ray burst. It would end up killing life off through a similar ends, even if the means to get there is quite different.
It's likely that the only means to 'beat' these events in the longrun is technology and expanding into the cosmos - becoming a multi planetary species first and eventually a multi star system species. That we (and many other species species for that matter) seem to have this instinct to expand as far as we can is probably just one of the most primal survival instincts. Concentrated over-adaption to a localized region and circumstance is how you get the Dodo.
The Permian-Triassic boundary extinction, the "Great Dying", is though to be related to the massive Siberian Traps large igneous province. This eruption had the unfortunate luck to be through one of the largest and oldest sedimentary basins on the planet. So, magma was introduced into this massive basin, cooking sedimentary docks including coal, organic-rich shales, and evaporites (salts).
The result was truly massive gas emission, producing over time hundreds of pipes up to ~1 km in diameter that ejected a nasty mix of gases, mostly steam and CO2 (lots of CO2), but including chlorinated organic compounds from the high temperature reaction of the salts and fossil carbon. The halocarbons would have been enough to collapse the ozone layer.
Afterwards, CO2 levels and temperatures stayed elevated for five million years (equatorial ocean temperature may have been too high for vertebrate life to survive there). The ordinary process by which CO2 is drawn back down (by absorption into the oceans and deposition of carbonates via Ca/Mg eroded off continents) was interrupted for some reason, perhaps because silica-utilizing ocean microorganisms had been killed off, causing those cations to instead form clays in a process called "reverse weathering".
I'm not sure what the motivations of the people who developed penicillin were, but I'm happy they did what they did.
Also vaccines (smallpox, polio, MMR), indoor plumbing and chlorination, sewage treatment, electrical lighting (so we didn't have to burn candles, whale oil, or gas piping/lighting to every room of the house), etc.
The last 150-200 years really is remarkable historically speaking. I don't think we've grasped what to do with it completely.
Modern takes on gender roles feel as deeply unserious to me as this take. Whenever I hear about the tradwife trend or hear some pundit blaming the "fertility crisis" on women liberation it sounds just like these 20th century takes.
“The Gods confound the man who first found out How to distinguish the hours---confound him, too Who in this place set up a sundial To cut and hack my days so wretchedly Into small pieces ! . . . I can't (even sit down to eat) unless the sun gives leave. The town's so full of these confounded dials . . .” ― Plautus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truth_of_Fact,_the_Truth_o...
Platus lived 254 – 184 BC. Sundials are from 1500BC. While it's a great quote, it certainly wasn't a new invention when he wrote it.
Already prior to the rise of the Roman Empire, there was a massive network of Phoenician and Greek colonies that would trade with one another constantly, from Cadiz to the Levant. The sea was a highway to them.
Amazon did not exist, but cunning merchants absolutely did, and they knew how to make money by selling attractive goods.
Back when cars were new, there was no infrastructure for petrol either, that was something you got in tiny quantities from a pharmacy. (The diesel engine can run on vegetable oil, but I don't think Mr Rudolf Diesel himself ever did that?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Diesel#Use_of_vegetable...
I care about the fact that technology is used to undermine democracy and destroy social cohesion.
Previously:
“All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.”
-- Blaise Pascal (~1650)
They were also the first to understand that steering the airplane was best done by warping the airfoils. Now we do it with rudders and elevators and flaps, then they did the whole surface.
Their accomplishments make more sense to me now!
I’m sure they were making lemonade from their lemons. It’s gonna flex, what’s that good for?
> Blom begins with Stravinsky, whose famous orchestral work The Rite of Spring was inspired by ancient Russian dance rituals. A melange of old folk music and arresting dissonance, the piece’s first performance in Paris 1913 triggered one of the most infamously violent reactions of any concert-hall audience in history. As Blom puts it bluntly, “all hell broke loose”:
> “During the first two minutes the public remained quiet,' Monteux [a musician] later recalled, “then there were boos and hissing from the upper circle, soon after from the stalls. People sitting next to one another began to hit one another on the head with fists and walking sticks, or whatever else they had to hand. Soon, their anger was turned against the dancers and especially against the orchestra... Everything to hand was thrown at them, but we continued playing. The chaos was complete when members of the audience turned on one another, on anyone supporting the other side. A heavily bejewelled lady was seen slapping her neighbour before storming off, while another one spat in her detractor's face. Fights broke out everywhere and challenges to duels were issued.”
There’s something about the image of a concert hall full of rich, fancy people erupting in a melee that is just delightful
Basically two seperate Theatre movements, one favored by the posh thr other favored by the working class. The two scenes came to an actual riot on Astor Place and lead to the wealthy retreating from class mixing.
Not to harsh your schadenfreude buzz, but this is not the right image. Classical music was mass culture at the time.
Opera, in particular, was popular with all classes. (There's a delightful sequence in, I think?, "The Leopard" of brick-layers coming to blows over the merits of one singer versus another.) Recordings of famous singers were the first "hit" gramaphone records. Enrico Caruso sold out concerts all over the world - and (in legend, at least) sometimes gave impromptu balcony concerts to disappointed punters gathered in the street below.
The subsequent performances, the London premiere, and the Paris concert premiere in 1914 all went off without a hitch. And the status of the Rite has only steadily increased ever since.
As Taruskin says, the music of the Rite is actually not very difficult to appreciate[1]:
> While it was at first a sore test for orchestra and conductor, and while it took fully half a century before music analysts caught up with it, The Rite has never been a difficult piece for the audience.
> The sounds of the music make a direct and compelling appeal to the listener’s imagination, and the listener’s body. In conjunction with Stravinsky’s peerless handling of the immense orchestra they have a visceral, cathartic impact. They leave—and to judge from the history of the score’s reception, have always left—most listeners feeling exhilarated. It is only the mythology of The Rite that would suggest anything else.
[1] https://avant.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/Richard-Taruskin-Res...
If you know Russian, Dusk Of The Empire podcast is pretty cool.
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCL7ox52jCNuMcckQSc0o5HQ#botto...
Extrapolating such curves into the future suggests the current AI revolution is simply the last and latest node in a string of revolutions and it's nothing special.
If you think about it, having the world's all information at your fingertips (google), and in your pocket (iphone) might have been equally revolutionary. And before that came TV, radio, car, train, boat, plane, electricity, gas engine, steam engine etc as revolutions.
There's nothing that suggests the economic output per person is accelerating beyond the historical 2%/year. What could be reasons? Perhaps limited electricity, compute, AI model quality, computer speed etc.
So, the more analytical side of me thinks what we're experiencing is nothing extraordinary. It's just another revolution in a string of many :)
Obviously, my other, the more human side gets scared and feels afraid about the meaning of life, and humanity's place in it.
They’re neat tools. They help some people (a much, much smaller group of people than most think) be a bit more productive.
If LLMs are considered revolutionary, we are stagnating.
We already had the genAI goodies for 2 decades. It's not going to be such a shocking change.
Were they wrong?
So... how would we know?
Spend 3 days in deep nature, or meditate etc, and you can uncover your humanity....
Go look at the clouds, or better the stars, for some time. But don't do it tool long because you might start wondering why the fuck you're wasting so much time and energy fulfilling other people's TODO lists
I tend to agree. I’d like to live a different lifestyle than the one I have today, but that would require rolling back the clock about 20 years at least and learning 1,000 lessons I have now that I wish I’d known back then. Don’t marry the wrong person. Figure out how to marry the right person. Have kids with the right person. But also you don’t HAVE to have kids. Avoid divorce. Avoid debt. Know myself, truly.
Now I’m on the “hedonic treadmill” and struggling to get off. I’m reading The Happiness Trap, it is good so far. But there are bills to pay, mouths to feed, and so it goes. The TODO list keeps growing, and I can only keep doing the job in front of me.
And yet, it is hard not to read this article and feel a bit, what’s the word, perhaps melancholic, about the direction we’re heading as a species. I’ll raise my son the best I can, and be the best person that I can be. And maybe build some stuff to leave the world a little better than I found it. None of us asked to be here. But given that we’re here it makes sense to try and do what we can to make things better. For now that means commenting on HackerNews about the current state of affairs and lamenting the direction humanity is going in. We’re burning the planet, pursing instant gratification, and “late-stage capitalism” is the status quo we live with. All we can do is what we can do. It is easy to think “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em,” but I’ll keep hoping for a better world where we take advantage of each other less and do a bit more to help each other though this thing called life.
You can certainly commit mass slaughter with less technology. But then you need either a) more people to do the slaughtering, or b) more time. Technology makes it possible for a few people to slaughter many people in very little time.
I mean sure, people still had babies, and the babies (us) adapted to the new environment, viewing it as "inevitable"
But that doesn't mean we can't make better choices around governance and technology going forward, or that we're not making bad choices right now
How New Jersey Turned Into A Giant Suburb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKgK7Z-yu-4
Talking about how NJ is one of the wealthiest states in the nation, but also has striking poverty
I'm not sure what exactly could have changed, and of course plans are different than outcomes. But to me it's clear there is huge leverage around certain choices, especially regarding automobiles, and they are worth being thoughtful about
---
There's also the question of why public transportation from Manhattan to the 3 neighboring airports is surprisingly thin ... I'm pretty sure that a large part of the answer is lobbying by taxi companies that stood to profit
We live in absolute luxury and comfort today compared to pretty much any point in history.
It gets very tiresome hearing people complain about how hard they have it these days, which is just factually untrue. What I actually think the problem is, is apathy. People are looking to blame anything else for how they feel in life, rather than take ownership.
I see so many times people complaining about how fast modern life is, and yet they have a very real choice to go and live mostly off grid. There are communities all around the world where pro-active people have had the same thoughts and feelings, and actually had the guts to do something about it. This is all available to you right now, with the added benefit that it isn't even permanent if you don't like it (unlike 100+ years ago when there was no choice).
(waits for the downvotes)
Or maybe everything is cause and effect, there is no free will, and what people feel or do is completely predetermined and outside their ability to change.
Flip a coin.
Today, even the Internet's positive impact is wildly debated, the LLM copyright issues are wildly debated and no data exists for the long term impact of LLM usage on the reasoning faculties (if you tell me that the article was not posted to discredit LLM skeptics, I have a bridge to sell you).
It would seem to me that the public sentiment of stuff is not very trustworthy in general, especially at its typical intensity. Both when it's negative or positive. The word "multimedia" still makes me gag a little, for example.
Notably, Hitler, Stalin, Trotsky, and Tito were all there at the same time.
As if they weren't things like horse carriages 2000 years ago. Pedants.
Wright brothers:[0] 1903
"They made the first controlled, sustained flight of an engine-powered, heavier-than-air aircraft with the Wright Flyer on December 17, 1903"
737-100 :[1] 1967
"the initial 737-100 made its first flight in April 1967"
1967 - 1903 = 64
2025 - 1967 = 58
So in three years your statement will be true. As of now, it is false - unless you count the start of 737 development time I guess?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737
PS: This is also "backed up by Gemini" with the google search phrase "is first 737 flight closer to first wright brother flight than now?" .... but I'd rather do the math.
So to revise my statement, in six years your statement will be true....
My apologies.
Out of curiosity, why use the 737 as a benchmark? Especially since the first Jet plane, the Heinckel HE 178[0] (1939) was the first jet plane, the de Havilland Comet[1] (1952) was the first commercial jet airliner, and the Boeing 707[2] (1957) was the first Boeing jet airliner, Followed closely by the McDonnel Douglas DC-8[3].
All of which are (unlike the 737) closer in time to the Wright Brothers' 1903 flight than to the present. That said, as was mentioned, in just three-six years the 737 will also be closer in time to that 1903 flight than to that future date.
So why the focus on the 737 rather than the 707 or DC8? Not trying to dunk on you or the 737, just trying to figure out why the 737 would be more notable than other jet planes/commercial jet airliners.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_178
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet
It was a small airliner with two engines in the rear. Although the Caravelle was retired in 2005, the twin rear engine layout was used by the very successful DC-9, MD-80 series, which is still flying, as are the similar Embraer ERJs. Twin rear mounted engines is also the design used by most private jets.
That's because in 1910 cars were a lot slower than trains.
Should we assume that there is a co-ordinated publicity campaign to promote this topic?
David Farber - Crack: Rock Cocaine, Street Capitalism, and the Decade of Greed [Audiobook]
The last paradigm shift was radio, everything since then has been evolution and miniaturization.
Google says that horses can go up to 70 km/h (45mi/h). Did cars (and bicicles) go so fast then?
> in 1904 in NYC the limit was set to 12 mph inside of the city and 15 mph outside of it.
With that 12 mph figure being a little under the average running speed of the record holder marathon runner (26.2 miles in 2 hours flat, so 13.1 mph).
Now of course, most people are not record holding athletes, so sustaining these speeds on foot is not really happening for most. But you can definitely at least keep up for the duration of a sprint. So no real need for a horse even, your own legs can make do, despite these speeds being supposedly unnatural.
You can also sustain these speeds with a bicycle today, not sure about the bicycles of then.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Writeresearch/comments/hmy0h4/what_...
That is the fastest speed for a Thoroughbred racehorse over a mile. It's not sustainable for long. The horse record for 100 miles is 17MPH, on a really good Arabian.[1] 6MPH is a good working pace for a horse. 8-12 MPH at the trot, which can be kept up for a hour or two by many horses in good condition.
[1] https://www.chronofhorse.com/article/world-endurance-record-...
Anyone with even a vague awareness of history is aware of the historical parallels.
Let's hope saner heads will prevail in these times of rapid change.
Now consider that 1989-1991, with the reorganization of China following Tiananmen and the collapse of the Soviet Union are a similar epochal reorganization of global power structures.
It seems likely that we are now in our own Edwardian Era.