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

What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

loc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 659 posts

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#181

Post by another_story »

Aperocky wrote: post #170
tomxor wrote: post #33

This is surprisingly accurate, reserved and balanced through the lens of society as well as science. I was expecting something more fanciful like flying horses or whatnot.

Except that: > I'm sure that technological advancement in 2022 will be amazing, but they will be nothing as amazing as the present day than it is over 100 years ago (i.e. 1822). I don't know about that statement.

Cars, trains, airplanes, electricity used in consumer devices, movies, telephones, radio, instantaneous intercontinental communication, etc...

We have some cool stuff compared to 1922, but you could argue the shift was greater.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#182

Post by Nbox9 »

Aperocky wrote: post #170
tomxor wrote: post #33

This is surprisingly accurate, reserved and balanced through the lens of society as well as science. I was expecting something more fanciful like flying horses or whatnot.

Except that: > I'm sure that technological advancement in 2022 will be amazing, but they will be nothing as amazing as the present day than it is over 100 years ago (i.e. 1822). I don't know about that statement.

I’m really unsure about this. In 1822 canning food was new technology. 1822 didn’t have electrical generators but 1922 had radios, and the TV was clearly on the horizon. 1922 has the Model-T and airplanes.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#183

Post by lelanthran »

Guillaume86 wrote: post #70
inglor_cz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too many smart (or smart-sounding) people either here or on Reddit claim casually that some X will take hundreds of years to do. Where X may be artificial intelligence, conquest of longevity or whatever else. The reality is that we do not know. Some things may be out of our reach forever, but contemporary world has by far the highest count of scientists ever and the talent pool is widening as countries such as Bangla…

> Too many smart (or smart-sounding) people either here or on Reddit claim casually that some X will take hundreds of years to do. Where X may be artificial intelligence, conquest of longevity or whatever else. > The reality is that we do not know Yeah, but it works both ways, I see a lot of people on reddit claiming aging will be solved in X years (usually in their lifetime) and it does not sound any smarter.

I have never seen a that claim, but since 2012 I have seen not numerous upvoted posts on various forums that full self driving cars are only five years away.

I routinely saw similarly outlandish claims about AI in general.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#184

Post by timeon »

bencollier49 wrote: post #52

What I find fascinating about these predictions is that a lot of them came to pass around 1970 and then fell back. For example nationalisation of utilities and railways (here in the UK), communal living (tower blocks), and so on. Not to mention "a great liberalism of mind and the freedom to say anything"....

That idea about 'tower blocks in gardens' reminds me what happened 11 years later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Charter

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#185

Post by krupan »

galangalalgol wrote: post #106
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's Soylent and similar meal replacements, but that's a diet shake for people who try to min-max their life for some reason.

I was excited about the kickstarter because while a recovering alcoholic can completely stop using alcohol, a food addict always has to eat a little. Something bland, and quick I didn't think about was a plus. But afyer the Kickstarter they replaced the fish oil with polyunsaturated vegetable oil in powder form and dropped the rice protein content for more carbs. My triglycerides shot through the roof after the first…

You could try keto chow. They started with the Soylent recipe and made it carb free (if you don't count fiber as carbs).

https://www.ketochow.xyz/

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#186

Post by jpindar »

Macha wrote: post #131
evancoop wrote: post #38

The reality is that no such projection is plausible. Could a human being living in 1903, before the Wright Brothers have predicted a moon landing only 66 years later? Could anyone in 1990 have predicted the smartphone, let alone 1922? Only one prediction is worthy of confidence - the world of technology will increase at an exponential rate...and the world will improve. We lament progress, but few of us would choose 1…

> Could anyone in 1990 have predicted the smartphone Yes. It was called a communicator in fiction of the day. Did they get the exact details right, or every use case (e.g. replacing flashlights and music players)? No. Some of them used holograms from watches or big old handsets with a screen instead of a keypad but still big ear cups. But a portable device that could be used for voice calls, video calls, information…

In the 1950s, comic book detective Dick Tracy wore a two-way wrist radio, which later included video.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#187

Post by thoughtsimple »

jerb wrote: post #149
thenoblesunfish wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His comments about the slowing pace of scientific advancement really struck me. I have felt the same thing, often. That in 1922, we were actually somewhat close to the end of discovering all the really interesting things about physics: that is, those things which really shook up our understanding of the universe, but were still somehow comprehensible to our little human brains. I'm beginning to think that it wasn't j…

Scientific progress has slowed, but engineering progress is only just beginning. For instance, the electronic transport chain of respiration/photosynthesis, is a series of quantum tunnels. Man has barely scratched the surface of quantum-level control which nature already exhibits.

The number of transistors produced in 2021 is a bit mind boggling if you do the math. These are nanotechnology produced at a rate by humans that rivals any large physics number. By my calculation, Apple alone via TSMC produces something like 1x10^18 transistors per year. Add up Intel, Samsung and the rest of TSMC's customers and the number goes far higher. We are so used to it, we don't boggle at the concept any more but we should.

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#188

Post by Aachen »

viraptor wrote: post #9

The "less cleaning due to less coal" part is not something we really think much about these days, but the older limestone buildings can really show the difference. Here's a view with the old and either pressure-washed or redone wall: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Wso9gae4JPsN6NaG6 and that's on a residential side street... Imagine getting your clothes slowly covered with it every time you go out.

That link doesn't work for me, I get an infinitely loading spinner (in the address bar, behind the overlay, it says something about intent://) and the back button doesn't work so I have to kill the browser. Probably because I'm not using official chrome or something but a foss webview browser, it pops over and disables the app I was coming from but the content never loads. Can someone translate it into a regular link, or a screenshot of the content?

Edit: it works in Firefox (Fennec), here is the content in a normal picture: https://snipboard.io/uxGWaZ.jpg

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#189

Post by mc32 »

hiptobecubic wrote: post #164
mc32 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When social support for that goes away, it's only the "crazy" who would do that just because. But without societal support it's a dead-end. There are countries with lots of people --but whose contribution to innovation is substandard. There is no societal support so innovation is stunted. It’s like thinking justice will happen just because… No, it happens because society supports justice. Justice or innovation don’t…

Innovation does just happen, but only under circumstances that need it. People support it because it makes their lives easier. If it doesn't do that then honestly who cares? Don't confuse innovation in general with how many startups the country has.

There has to be some pull. If people are conditioned to be happy with say UBI + Netflix and conditioned to think that you should have a small impact on the planet (little consumption) and your daily needs met (food, shelter) innovation will go down in a generation or so.

[to answer weakfish who appears "dead": no it's not wrong to revert to a subsistence existence, but it has trade-offs. Just be aware of the trade-offs.]

Re: What the world will be like in a hundred years (1922)

#190

Post by delecti »

eganist wrote: post #176
jollybean wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"United States does rank below the UK in terms of social mobility." It always did, because the US had slaves, and ex-slaves who had no much opportunity to 'climb'. The US now also has a giant class of a specific kind of migrant - Latinos from Central America, who are completely different than those from Spain or Cuba and the rest of the world. They exist in a kind of 'separate' USA and while technically might have th…

I'm still amazed the first and last times nukes were used against people were in 1945.

I've heard arguments for and against the justifications to use nukes against Japan, and while I think it was probably unnecessary, at least it only happened at the very end of the war. If it had been introduced a couple years earlier then I worry our perception might be that it's just another thing you use during war.
Post reply on HN