Ask HN: When did tech stop being cool?

I still enjoy it when I can meet it on my terms. I think maybe a factor is whether you own it, or it owns you.

Back in 1980, if you sat down at a computer and did something with it, you were special, because very few people did that. Today, when you sit down at a computer, you are just one of the many suffering multitudes whose time and attention are eaten up by systems that either deliberately or inadvertently own you. It has become a treadmill, and making that stuff has become a treadmill too.

I'm reminded that 100 years ago, there was a huge workforce of "clerks" who were basically human information processors. Tech workers are today's clerks.

In 1980, your tech life wasn't worth anybody else owning and controlling. Today it is.

I can go right back to that world by stripping away the gratuitous complexity and control. An Arduino can entertain me for days.

Douglas Adams said

"1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.

2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.

3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."

There's a lot of truth in that.

Something I noticed in myself is that I'm weary of consuming content/software/gadgetry and find more of a spark in trying to create it myself these days. Maybe look into the maker movement, 3D printing (mentioned in a peer comment), or Arduino and similar entry-level hands-on stuff. Or at least have a browse through, say, hackaday.com and see if anything there floats your boat.

Much of the low-hanging fruit has been picked already, and only more difficult problems remain. This will be true until another major scientific breakthrough creates a new domain of technology with new low-hanging fruit.

> Programming languages and frameworks seem to be running in circles

I wouldn’t say this exactly, though advancements may have slowed due to less or no low-hanging fruit. The trend now is programming languages and frameworks that better control or eliminate effects (and with them attack surface, security vulnerabilities, and undefined behavior).

Rust is probably the poster child for this with its growing popularity and frameworks, though progenitors like Ada, Haskell and others in the ML and functional families count as well.

Then there’s the whole emerging field of quantum computing and quantum computing programming languages. That isn’t practical for garage hacking yet, but imagine when a future Steve Jobs or Bill Gates makes and markets the first desktop quantum computer. We’ll have a whole new field with low-hanging fruit.

This is why it’s critical for societies to continue large-scale investment in high-risk, high-return scientific research, to maintain a pipeline of new fields and their attendant low-hanging fruit for commercialization and innovation-driven economic growth.

I think the question will invariably result in people telling you that it's an age thing. That your interests have changed and that you've matured. That you reached a point in life where you, like many others, can't spend time to mess around with tech, but you just want something that works or you just want to relax after a hard day at work. And that might be all very true. I know I don't have time in day to play 10-12-24 hours straight to finish a game and wait to meet up with friends to talk about it. I know I also don't have time to be bored on day and spend the entire day doing distro hopping for no other reason than to see what has changed since the last day I did that.

Another answer can be that you now see past the veil that technology raises in front of itself. You now know the technical background, you understand the cold hard facts that form the software that you use and consume.

I think though that reality is a lot more complicated. The big reason for that is money and capitalism.

Let's say you are coming up with an idea for something, an app, a movie or book. You now have to get some money to make it because it's non-trivial, but you're committed to getting this idea off the ground. You put in your blood sweat and tears and after a long agonizing period to have something you're proud of which you then share with the rest of us. Here, one of the stories that always comes to mind is the first Matrix movie. I am sure that a similar story has unfolded in a lot of other fields, creative or technical. Now that creation took everything from you and it might yield some financial results, let's say 10% ROI. Maybe more, but let's say it was 10%.

Now in order for you to make that thing, you had to give everything. But what if someone copies your recipe for success and pumps out 5 or 10 similar creations. What if someone decides to make some ripoff or to catch the wave and flood the market with replicas. Or even worse, what if the people that bankrolled your first creation now own the IP for the creation and they decide that you now need to expand or follow up your story. What if your amazing Game 1.0 now is followed by Game 2.0 (which copies most of the same and ads very little content, yet generates a much higher profit margin?). Then Game 3.0. By Game 4.0 they decide to just remake Game 1.0 so they call it Game 1.0 Remastered - All the original content in 4K. Or Movie 1.0. Or Avengers 7.

I think the big problem is that our creative and technological mediums have been flooded by people coming into it for the money. How many articles do you find with "learn to code and make beaucoup bucks!!!"? Similarly, how many new, up and coming directors and actors do you see that create something as culture shocking or defining as American Beauty, Fight Club, Batman (1989 one...)? You don't. Because people join tech for the money, because no one studies creative writing, directing, but our STEM universities are flooded. The humanities are flooded by a different group of people, no longer willing to push the envelope, to explore what makes us unique, crazy, weird and interesting.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that money has corrupted tech. It corrupted the creative arts and it has corrupted us. So we have tech that can generate revenue, tech that can provide that ROI and that steady growth. We have "art" that at best replicates a long lost era or a cultural trend to make some quick cash.

Tech will not be cool and will stay uncool for as long as people are in it for the money solely. It will not be cool for as long as a VC expects to get it's money back + something extra. And why is the VC there? Because it's hard to compete against the giants without extra funding...

Sorry for the scattershot post, I am still refining a lot of my arguments here, but I hope the main point comes across...

Little bit annoyed that your phrasing attempts to speak for the world on the "coolness of tech". I still find it cool. Neural networks that generate art? Quantum computing making meaningful gains? Apple M1 chips are absolutely bonkers... Try to get a little less grumpy and appreciate the amazing things that are happening around you.