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

The Great Bifurcation

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 168 posts

Re: The Great Bifurcation

#101

Post by jareklupinski »

sofard wrote: post #27
humanistbot wrote: post #21

I'm of the age that I remember getting sucked in to the Second Life hype. MMORPGs were also becoming popular, and there was this narrative that "virtual worlds" were on a rocketship to the future. Universities and companies paid stupid amounts of money for digital real estate. Wired ran profiles of Second Life speculators who got rich in the bubble. Now I guess we call virtual worlds "the metaverse" and think it'll b…

I seriously wonder whether there will be a cultural rebellion against the digitization of our lived experiences. It seems like everyone (even the youngest who grew up in a fully digital world) feels like we're on this path to black mirror dystopia, but there's yet to be a collective awakening/action to combat it. It wouldn't surprise me if down the road there's a cultural movement that decides "we're opting out of al…

anecdotal, but I went to a concert recently and was amazed/thrilled to see maybe five or ten isolated instances of someone pulling out their phone to take a few second clip for insta or snapchat or whatever

5-ish years ago it would be common to see 25-45% of the crowd with their phones up and out recording almost the entire show

Re: The Great Bifurcation

#102

Post by Mezzie »

sofard wrote: post #27
humanistbot wrote: post #21

I'm of the age that I remember getting sucked in to the Second Life hype. MMORPGs were also becoming popular, and there was this narrative that "virtual worlds" were on a rocketship to the future. Universities and companies paid stupid amounts of money for digital real estate. Wired ran profiles of Second Life speculators who got rich in the bubble. Now I guess we call virtual worlds "the metaverse" and think it'll b…

I seriously wonder whether there will be a cultural rebellion against the digitization of our lived experiences. It seems like everyone (even the youngest who grew up in a fully digital world) feels like we're on this path to black mirror dystopia, but there's yet to be a collective awakening/action to combat it. It wouldn't surprise me if down the road there's a cultural movement that decides "we're opting out of al…

I'm going to call it now: The zeitgeist of the 2030s and 2040s will be a focus on biology to contrast with technology. So instead of trying to eliminate humans from the equation, we'll see a group of people who take parts of tech they like (such as systems thinking) and focus it on human improvement instead of external tech.

Think genetically engineered humans vs. cyborgs; there will be a focus on holistic 'working with' human impulses and neurology instead of 'what can the tech accomplish'?

That'd be my guess.

Re: The Great Bifurcation

#103

Post by thejackgoode »

Mezzie wrote: post #102
sofard wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I seriously wonder whether there will be a cultural rebellion against the digitization of our lived experiences. It seems like everyone (even the youngest who grew up in a fully digital world) feels like we're on this path to black mirror dystopia, but there's yet to be a collective awakening/action to combat it. It wouldn't surprise me if down the road there's a cultural movement that decides "we're opting out of al…

I'm going to call it now: The zeitgeist of the 2030s and 2040s will be a focus on biology to contrast with technology. So instead of trying to eliminate humans from the equation, we'll see a group of people who take parts of tech they like (such as systems thinking) and focus it on human improvement instead of external tech. Think genetically engineered humans vs. cyborgs; there will be a focus on holistic 'working w…

Regarding the zeitgeist change: don’t you think that expectation windows for results based on success of disrupting markets by tech have shrunk to a point where it’s not possible for a more long term and complex projects (biology being one of them) to attract enough talent? I feel like such changes are only possible based on big crises

Re: The Great Bifurcation

#104

Post by ghaff »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #77
ghaff wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Massive" niche resurgences. Nothing remotely mainstream.

I'm gonna say vinyl is a bit more than mainstream. I can buy records at Walmart. That usually means a trend is widespread.

It's less niche than I would have guessed--about 5% of industry revenue and about the same as CDs (which surprised me a bit given that I still sometimes buy CDs and haven't bough vinyl for decades). Still, that's revenue not listens or anything like that so that's still pretty much a rounding error.

Re: The Great Bifurcation

#105

Post by ladyattis »

nefitty wrote: post #56
sofard wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I seriously wonder whether there will be a cultural rebellion against the digitization of our lived experiences. It seems like everyone (even the youngest who grew up in a fully digital world) feels like we're on this path to black mirror dystopia, but there's yet to be a collective awakening/action to combat it. It wouldn't surprise me if down the road there's a cultural movement that decides "we're opting out of al…

How many video game developers rarely play video games? I bet most game devs don't count gaming amongst their defining interests. There seems to be a majority swath of humans who get hooked on unproductive hobbies. Drugs, partying, social media, video games. I'm talking HOOKED, dreams framed by the TikTok UI, taking work off to watch a Counterstrike tournament, weeks of back-to-back hangovers. I mean, I've been there…

Well John Romero got fired for slacking off on development of Quake 1 playing Doom deathmatches all the time. So I can imagine some devs love the games they make but probably not that many.

Re: The Great Bifurcation

#106

Post by fragmede »

handrous wrote: post #38
sofard wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I seriously wonder whether there will be a cultural rebellion against the digitization of our lived experiences. It seems like everyone (even the youngest who grew up in a fully digital world) feels like we're on this path to black mirror dystopia, but there's yet to be a collective awakening/action to combat it. It wouldn't surprise me if down the road there's a cultural movement that decides "we're opting out of al…

> on this path to black mirror dystopia A bunch of episodes of Black Mirror aren't really even about the future. They're criticism of things right now (or, rather, when the episodes were made).

As soon as good AR glasses come out though, Black Mirror's an instruction manual on what app to write.

Re: The Great Bifurcation

#107

Post by fragmede »

toast0 wrote: post #74
skybrian wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the limit was reached with the backlash against Google Glass. Having a camera on your face was a bridge too far. Phones you can put away. Some people like VR but they use it at home. On the other hand, earbuds and smart watches haven't had the same issues.

I think the backlash against Google Glass might have subsided if it had been a useful device that was widely available. (Of course, the wide release version was on watches) As it was, wearing a Google Glass was making several statements: I have acccess to this special thing; I'm going to wear this mostly useless object in a highly visible location on my body; and if actually using it in public, I don't care that havi…

I think it's as simple as the fact that Snapchat glasses weren't $1,500 in a time before crypto.

Re: The Great Bifurcation

#108

Post by ladyattis »

I just don't see how the metaverse has any more advantages than the virtual worlds of past decades. We've seen it in the mid-90s with many failed companies and only a couple of moderate successes in the 2000s with Second Life and IMVU plus MMOs if you want to expand the definition of virtual worlds to include games. The idea that you can replace the majority of in-person interactions with virtual ones is nonsensical to me; sometimes it's better to let people meet face-to-face. And it just seems to me it's all about puffing up the egos of Silicon Valley executives and letting them evade taxes at the same time thanks to the blockchain angle.

Re: The Great Bifurcation

#109

Post by Mezzie »

thejackgoode wrote: post #103
Mezzie wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to call it now: The zeitgeist of the 2030s and 2040s will be a focus on biology to contrast with technology. So instead of trying to eliminate humans from the equation, we'll see a group of people who take parts of tech they like (such as systems thinking) and focus it on human improvement instead of external tech. Think genetically engineered humans vs. cyborgs; there will be a focus on holistic 'working w…

Regarding the zeitgeist change: don’t you think that expectation windows for results based on success of disrupting markets by tech have shrunk to a point where it’s not possible for a more long term and complex projects (biology being one of them) to attract enough talent? I feel like such changes are only possible based on big crises

I do, but I also think that we'll see this biology flowering from non-tech people who have some tech skill. So it won't be tech companies moving into biology space, it will be lab workers and students who know some coding realizing that 'hey, I could do this thing using my phone' and sharing with each other. I also think that as the sector grows and we see more people trained, we'll see a medical research boom the same way we saw a boom in devs in the 90s so the talent base will expand a LOT.

The expectation windows are set by investors, and I think biology has a good shot at being able to get resources/funding without having to rely too heavily on VCs or investors (think government and academic funding). Likewise, there's no Microsoft, Google, or FB waiting in the wings to buy up/bury any advancements.

I also think we're overdue for some major social changes because our current ways aren't sustainable (regardless of what you think the problems are + what 'side' you're on, I think we can almost all agree that this can't continue). The main problem I think IS that we're too short sighted currently, and we'll have to correct that, so I do think long-term projects will become easier in the early 2030s.

Re: The Great Bifurcation

#110

Post by fragmede »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #90
humanistbot wrote: post #21

I'm of the age that I remember getting sucked in to the Second Life hype. MMORPGs were also becoming popular, and there was this narrative that "virtual worlds" were on a rocketship to the future. Universities and companies paid stupid amounts of money for digital real estate. Wired ran profiles of Second Life speculators who got rich in the bubble. Now I guess we call virtual worlds "the metaverse" and think it'll b…

> Universities and companies paid stupid amounts of money for digital real estate. Wired ran profiles of Second Life speculators who got rich in the bubble. A lot of dumb things happened in the past, especially with companies that tried to substitute virtual scarcity speculation for an actual business model. It's easy to mock them for how ridiculous it all is, but I don't see any evidence that Meta is charging down a…

Roblox seems to be doing alright with virtual scarcity, with designer avatar accessories going for $15,000 in some cases. (Roblox takes at 30% cut of the transaction.) I'm not exactly sure why they're successful with it, but just because Blizzard failed at a real life auction house doesn't mean everyone failed at it.
Post reply on HN