trelltron

While I broadly agree that things don't usually change how we expect, I do think the near future could invert that somewhat.

If we look at you examples of failed predictions: > domed cities, flying cars, orbital space resorts, mile-high towers connected by floating trains, robotic servants, and the such we notice that the real reason none of these exist is because they are all essentially impossible to achieve with our current technology.

However, robotic servants are partially already here. We can verbally ask a device to play a certain song or order us some loo roll, and it works. We have autonomous cars that can, reasonably safely, drive us wherever we want to go. Elon Musk's new factory is, reportedly, almost entirely automated. And as most of this progress is recent, it seems likely that it will continue to advance for a while.

I will agree that there is significant friction against changes in society, which slow down adoption of new tech, but consider that robots in the context we are discussing are not a consumer good, they are a replacement for employees. So perhaps the most relevant question that will drive or stall adoption is: Is a robot more cost-effective than a human.

I also think watching the extent to which self-driving cars are adopted by delivery/freight/taxi companies, and the fallout from that, will be a fascinating (maybe terrifying) glimpse into that future.

You don't understand the premise. The Parent is pointing out that taxation of working people is used to fund the care of others. Low (human) employment breaks that system.

Having a large pool of potential workers is meaningless if there is no money to pay them for the work, or to pay for the other necessary elements that go into that kind of care.

The actual fake news problem is purely a product of the internet though. Traditional media often contains biases of some kind, it's inevitable, but good journalists genuinely try to minimise the impact of that.

Previously the only way to get news was through these slow, controlled channels. And the people controlling these channels were responsible for the content being delivered, so if a slanderous lie was published they could be held accountable.

But with Facebook I can make up anything I want, frame it as fact, and get it seen by millions of people. Many of whom will believe it if it is convenient for them to believe it. And many of whom will never realise or accept that is a lie. And nothing bad happens to me for sharing these lies, I just make a bit of money from the ads.

This is a phenomenon that can only happen with the awesome communication enabled by the internet. And it's much worse than minor press bias.

I think this is the key difference. Conventional wars, regardless of the weapons, are awful, but they take time, and resources, and constant decision making. Things can change, one side withdraws or surrenders and the killing stops.

A weaponised virus doesn't have these constraints, and could destroy humanity, but at least it takes some time, and can probably be somewhat mitigated.

In nuclear war, a split second decision could annihilate every living human, erase all evidence of our existence, and maybe cause a big enough climate shift to permanently end life on this planet.

Having a child when you don't already have the capacity to adequately support both them AND yourselves (financially and emotionally) is one of the most selfish things you can do.

Twitter had plenty of competition. All existing social media was competition for Twitter. Email was competition for Twitter.

Competition isn't about some other founder doing the same thing you're doing. It's about all the ways people can already do the things you're trying to sell them.

This article is from 1999 though. It's probably wrong for 2016, but that's to be expected.

Nobody implied you were talking about US citizens.

The parent comment is valid when taking about the 'US oligarchy' too.

What's to stop you stealing anything?

I've seen a number of British comedians make similar statements.

American audiences want their comic lead to be the cool guy making witty remarks, British audiences want the lead to be the butt of the jokes.

Ecosystem: a complex network or interconnected system.

What about forced updates makes them bullies? Or are you just generally angry?

It explains the cooking oil rise in the article as:

"a change in reporting to the Census Bureau"

I wouldn't be surprised if for lots of the content like this the UK is actually in the worst group.

The example that is currently annoying me: Sky has an exclusive deal with HBO for some of their shows, so I can't legally watch some of the best TV currently being made without paying for a mountain of other stuff I'll never watch.

I think the existence of Pictionary as a game is a decent example of this.

For what it's worth, the entire civilised world agrees with you.

Maybe, but on the flip side, I finished Uni with about £20k debt, in the most benign from that debt can take, and working in software I immediately earned more than that per year. I also never had to care about medical bills (still don't) because of the NHS.

Just want to point out that there is a good reason for the higher taxes.

What truly interests me is the idea that, potentially within our lifetimes, we will be forced to admit that there is no longer enough gainful work for all humans to have traditional jobs.

Self-driving cars have the potential to remove ALL transportation-related jobs from the job-pool. And there are many other fields which could probably be entirely operated by machines when the technology is sufficiently advanced.

Historically the labor saved by technology has been moved to other fields, but I have my doubts that this is sustainable.

Parent didn't say anything about religion. Religion does not have a monopoly on basic human decency.

I think writing notes helps us remember things because we're concentrating on the information being recorded, and because in order to record it we are forced to create a well structured representation of that information which will also be easily remembered.

However, when I take a picture, I'm mostly concentrating on the camera and the spacial aspect of what I am photographing (getting it into frame), which doesn't help me remember any of the details, which are the genuinely important bit.

I do like your explanation though. I wouldn't be surprised if people who are more (for lack of a better word) artistic than myself, focus more on the details as part of the photo-taking process, and so retain those details better.

Tangentially related, but Black Mirror has a great episode which covers a similar premise to your 'contact lens size HoloLens' one.

Basically everything you see is recorded, and you can revisit any moment you've experienced any time you want. Which has many negative effects in the show, but which would actually avoid the author's problem altogether, as you no longer have to 'spend time' to take pictures.

If recording of all of your experiences (good and bad) are implicit, then will it improve our ability to live in the moment? Will it dilute the significance of the moments we want to 'choose' to remember if everything else is bundled in there too?

One of the suggestions of the episode seems to be that allowing ourselves to return to the past to such a degree can make it hard to escape from it and move on with out lives.

Sure, if you mis-frame it like this then the truck option looks better. But then, most crimes are actually really easy to pull off.

It's what comes after the crime that actually matters, and I feel like the whole 'escape with the booty' part could be much easier at sea.

I have no idea how you could get that second interpretation from what he said. And the perspective is clearly inherited from the parent comment, who didn't mention being "on board" a bus, just "on the road with" a bus.

No ambiguity in that comment that I can see.

EDIT: I guess the use of rather in this context could be a colloquialism?

Read the post you're replying to plz.

"But anyway Batman always has a plan in taking down any super powered being in case they go rouge or mind controlled. He stores them on his computer and makes technology or finds items that can weaken them or take away their powers."

If you classify 'clothing' and 'shoes' as extra things then sure. Having clothes, some mugs, and a laptop allows him to do anything on that list except penmanship. (And swimming if you don't want to just swim naked)

How, exactly, did it affect other people?