Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The good things in the current age in tech

blog.kronis.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 120 posts

Re: The good things in the current age in tech

#81

Post by inglor_cz »

cyber_kinetist wrote: post #57
kaycebasques wrote: post #13

My unfiltered additions: * SpaceX. I have lots of reservations about the company but the fact that they are consistently doing things previously thought impossible is very important for humanity in general. * The new Dune movie was downright amazing. The CGI was believable and an important part of the story. * AI-generated art. Fascinating. * Wikipedia. Wow. * I can invest in lots of different assets relatively easil…

SpaceX still pales nothing to what NASA did in the height of the Cold War. Well, it's better than zero space exploration, but it's also pretty disappointing compared to what people have already achieved half a decade ago.

NASA in the 1960s ate almost half per cent of the entire US GDP. (The Manhattan project was even more expensive: see https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL34645.pdf).

Today, that would correspond to more than 100 billion USD a year.

SpaceX has nowhere that kind of money. They are orders of magnitude smaller, and must comply with regulations that Apollo didn't have to.

Of course Usain Bolt will overtake a well trained mouse.

Re: The good things in the current age in tech

#82

Post by rhizome31 »

laurent92 wrote: post #80
rhizome31 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how it is possible to still have this view of the problem. All the resources I am aware of that seem backed by facts and science are currently forecasting an utter disaster. I think I'm someone with a rather positive attitude in life and as you said I always try to look at solutions rather than just complain. In fact I'm doing rather well at the personal level. But in the case of the environmental…

> If that means 99% of the world population dying in horrendous circumstances Right here, here is a sign that you are reading quite extreme literature. More importantly: Unbalanced, uncriticized literature. Scientific studies don’t only need to seem backed up by facts, they also need to be criticized to ensure the facts were not cherry-picked. Studying science in the current political climate is like saving paintings…

I pulled that number as an exaggeration to illustrate the fact that even if "our civilization" survives (whatever it may mean), it doesn't mean things are going to be OK. Even if you make that 50% it's still not great news in my book.

I've read Dire Predictions written by members of the IPCC, the famous Limits to Growth and I follow the works of Jancovici, a French engineer specialized in these issues (here is a talk in English he did for MIT Media Lab: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s254IPHXgVA ) Do those qualify as biased sources to you?

Re: The good things in the current age in tech

#83

Post by varjag »

askl56 wrote: post #78
varjag wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NASA of the 1960s was consuming 10% of America's GDP. You can do a lot with that kind of money. SpaceX does its part on a Snapchat budget.

Not even close to true. US GDP in 1965 was $743.7 billion[0]. NASA's budget peaked in 1964–66 when it consumed roughly 4% of all federal spending. The agency was building up to the first Moon landing and the Apollo program was a top national priority, consuming more than half of NASA's budget and driving NASA's workforce to more than 34,000 employees and 375,000 contractors from industry and academia. $5 billion is 0…

OK I checked. NASA budget in 1965 was indeed just 60 billion, which is like only 8% of not even GDP but U.S. federal budget. Chump change, shame on you SpaceX for not landing on the Moon yet.

Re: The good things in the current age in tech

#84

Post by acomjean »

autoexec wrote: post #6
kwertyoowiyop wrote: post #4

And just to emphasize: almost everything is either free or inexpensive, both software and a lot of wonderful hardware.

On the other hand, almost everything comes with hidden costs and risks as well. Pretty much every new technology or cool gadget comes to the public as a double-edged sword especially when it's "free" or inexpensive. In the open source/developer space things are often far better, but the general public is just screwed. Right now our lives are filled with very cool tech, but nearly always at a hidden price no matter wh…

Andy Ihnatko was lamenting that he likes to play Tetris. Yet all the Tetris phone apps are either ad-filed or bad. So he caries a separate device.

Those cheap(ish) reteo hand held and the community of moders are my vote for good things.

Re: The good things in the current age in tech

#85

Post by noir_lord »

mihaic wrote: post #66
varjag wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where are you from, but over here landing an orbital rocket booster on its ass is pretty impressive. Something NASA didn't even bother enough to try to achieve.

I think the previous commenter was refering to the NASA of the 1960s, which returned a human from the surface of the moon before Elon Musk was born. SpaceX has more than a few kilobytes of RAM and can't really be compared to the immense achievement of the cold-war space programs.

It depends how you balance it out.

SpaceX is doing things that current nation states can't/won't do and do it on a comparative shoestring.

Yes NASA did amazing things (as did Roscosmos) with the technology they had but they had much more resources as well.

If SpaceX continues on it's current trajectory I wouldn't bet on a return to the moon and back inside a decade or so.

Also if you adjust for $/kg to LEO (and eventually Lunar orbit) then SpaceX is crushing NASA.

It's all about what metric you pick (or cherry pick if you are trying to make a point) really.

NASA is amazing, one of my favourite organisations ever back to been a kid in the 80's watching the Shuttle launches and some of the stuff they've done on pure science is amazing.

Let NASA do the pure science (which realistically has to be publicly funded) and SpaceX (and it's private competitors (when they get some..)) focus on that "$/kg to space" - we win both ways.

Also for Clarity, I'm not an Elon Musk fan, I think he's a bit of a prick.

I respect the outcomes/people who work for the companies not the man.

At the peak of the Apollo era NASA was 4.41% of US Gov spending.

For 2020 that would equate to about 264 billion dollars.

SpaceX isn't spending 264 billion dollars a year and look what they are doing!.

Re: The good things in the current age in tech

#86

Post by danielvaughn »

rhizome31 wrote: post #64
tapan_jk wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Our civilization will make the transition. It will be messy and could have been much less painful but we will do it. I wish to see this kind of positivity around me more often. I have worked with a colleague or two in the past who viewed problems as something that needed to be solved, and were a step or two ahead of the rest of us in terms of finding solutions. Lately, I see that the default reaction to problems is…

I don't understand how it is possible to still have this view of the problem. All the resources I am aware of that seem backed by facts and science are currently forecasting an utter disaster. I think I'm someone with a rather positive attitude in life and as you said I always try to look at solutions rather than just complain. In fact I'm doing rather well at the personal level. But in the case of the environmental…

So I'm (1) all for green energy, and (2) not very knowledgeable about climate issues so I defer to experts. However, I feel skeptical about climate forecasts because there is a long (and rarely mentioned) track record of dire predictions that never came true.

In 1970, scientists predicted that we would be in a new ice age by the 21st century. In 1988, scientists predicted that rising sea levels would cover every island in the Indian ocean by 2018. In 2004, they predicted that Britain would be "plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020".

By all means, we should take meaningful steps towards cleaner energy, because it's better overall. But the idea that we're on the verge of an apocalyptic disaster...no, I just can't get behind that.

Re: The good things in the current age in tech

#87

Post by ryukafalz »

danielvaughn wrote: post #79
ryukafalz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The prospect of cities with much less air pollution is wonderful. For cities with a dense urban core (of which mine, Philly, certainly is) I'm really hoping we lean in on bikes (electric or not) moreso than electric cars. Even less carbon-intensive to produce, and in a city with this level of density it's shocking how quickly you can get around by bike. I would go so far as to say it's often faster than driving if…

On the other hand, a bike-centric city would not be very accessible to people with disabilities. Having something in between, maybe trains or small electric buses, would be ideal IMO.

That really depends on the disability. If you use a mobility scooter for example, particularly one of the faster ones, that's going to drive much more smoothly on a bike path than on the sidewalk (where the pavement is often uneven, you have to deal with the curb every block, etc). For that matter, not everyone can drive either. Some disabilities result in your license being taken away; for example, you may not be able to drive if you're prone to seizures. But you may be able to cycle!

If bike infrastructure is done well, it should be accessible enough that those disabled people who can ride a bike are able to use it: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jan/02/cambridge-dis...

Now, you're right that people with some disabilities will not be able to cycle, or will not require a mobility scooter. (Although if you want one and can't afford it, that's also a problem, and I believe a common one here? Our healthcare system...) It's still important to have various accessible modes of transportation. Trains can be a good option here, though it's important that they have level boarding for wheelchair users and that all stations are likewise accessible. (Philly's unfortunately are not. The City Hall station reconstruction is long overdue.)

And some people may always still need a car due to their disability! In the Netherlands, they have something called the Canta, which is a microcar specifically for people with disabilities that's small enough to operate on bike paths and can be parked on the sidewalk: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canta_(vehicle)

And yes, some may need a full-sized vehicle as well; it's worth replacing some parking spaces with disabled parking spaces to accommodate that case.

My point, though, is that our car-centric city designs in the US don't accommodate everyone either! We often consider it to be the default out of inertia, but it's important to remember that not everyone can drive a car, and in a car-dependent area that's a recipe for social isolation. Our cities should be designed such that everyone is able to get around quickly and safely.

Re: The good things in the current age in tech

#88

Post by danielvaughn »

ryukafalz wrote: post #87
danielvaughn wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, a bike-centric city would not be very accessible to people with disabilities. Having something in between, maybe trains or small electric buses, would be ideal IMO.

That really depends on the disability. If you use a mobility scooter for example, particularly one of the faster ones, that's going to drive much more smoothly on a bike path than on the sidewalk (where the pavement is often uneven, you have to deal with the curb every block, etc). For that matter, not everyone can drive either. Some disabilities result in your license being taken away; for example, you may not be ab…

That Canta car is pretty cool, I've never seen that before. Totally agree about car-centric problems. I grew up in the suburbs and lived near a lot of stroads. Requiring a car to do anything is such a stressful way to live.

Re: The good things in the current age in tech

#89

Post by ryukafalz »

danielvaughn wrote: post #88
ryukafalz wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That really depends on the disability. If you use a mobility scooter for example, particularly one of the faster ones, that's going to drive much more smoothly on a bike path than on the sidewalk (where the pavement is often uneven, you have to deal with the curb every block, etc). For that matter, not everyone can drive either. Some disabilities result in your license being taken away; for example, you may not be ab…

That Canta car is pretty cool, I've never seen that before. Totally agree about car-centric problems. I grew up in the suburbs and lived near a lot of stroads. Requiring a car to do anything is such a stressful way to live.

Not Just Bikes has a nice video on the Canta and things like it if you'd like to see them in action: https://youtu.be/B9ly7JjqEb0

Re: The good things in the current age in tech

#90

Post by noir_lord »

GDC7 wrote: post #70
WalterBright wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no reservations about SpaceX. SpaceX is doing what every entrepreneur wished they were doing. I want to buy stock in SpaceX. I don't even care if the stock tanks, I just want a piece of the dream.

> I just want a piece of the dream As I said many times, space has become a religion for people who identify themselves as atheists. And Musk is the techno-utopian Pope, with stock ownership in one of his scam companies becoming a form of techno-utopian indulgence Many of you are unfortunately too smart to keep believing in absence of evidence, unlike religious individuals who can hold a belief for their whole life.…

> When you'll realize that there is nothing for us up there

Nothing but resources, science, space to expand, copious energy and the chance to make humanity some what immune to the next asteroid.

200K years ago there was a guy sat in a cave saying "I don't know why you need to go over that horizon, we have everything we need here".

I am an atheist, I'm not dogmatic about it.

I just think that a species can have more than one goal at a time and that some goals transcend petty day to day things.

The ancillary benefits are nice as well, research and development often pays off in completely unexpected directions.

It's about what I hope the future will be and that's a humanity as partially a spaceborne civilisation.

I was born too late for Apollo (1980) and too early for whatever we are hopefully about to do but I hope to live long enough to see it the first parts.

> Every human activity in space has not only failed to break even but proved to be a financial disaster of epic proportions. The sheer amount of mass that we need to bring up there in order to live and thrive as a specie is so enormous that no rocket, no matter how big or reusable will get us there.

You have to boost enough into space for things out of the gravity well to become mostly self-sustaining outside of the gravity well.

To do that you have to get launch costs down by orders of magnitude on what they have historically been.

We don't want to be putting 10 or 20 tonnes in space, we want to be putting 100 up on every launch with multiple launches a day, the solar system is full of raw materials and energy but to make it viable the processing has to be done without sending it down and up the well every time.

The US didn't become the economic powerhouse that is because the UK shipped everything over to the colonies, that wouldn't have worked instead we (and the other countries colonising North America/Canada) shipped over enough resources to bootstrap an economy by supplying the tools/equipment to mostly survive on local resources, then initially shipped back raw materials which allowed the colonies to expand and eventually become independent/self sufficient in their own right.

I could see a somewhat analgous thing happening in reality and it's been a trope of science fiction for quite a while (The Expanse series has an interesting take on it, the UN/Earth, Mars and the Belters).

Post reply on HN