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

Programming in the Apocalypse

matduggan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 301 posts

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#171

Post by madrox »

cassepipe wrote: post #152
madrox wrote: post #97

The pandemic taught me a lot about apocalypse. While people are a lot slower to buy into collective action and changing their way of life than I thought, society is far more robust than I expected. Covid looked nothing like a pandemic film, thank god. With that in mind, I have some ideas on what programming will look like in 30 years: 1. New frameworks and abstractions for making apps even more disposable while maint…

I feel the same about 5. Do 3d movies still exist by the way ? Or IMax movies ?

Probably in the same way that VR does...it comes in waves. 3D has been around for a while, and every now and then it resurges. It has more to do with marketing forces to excite people about going to the theater than anything.

And yes, I suspect theaters will still be a thing unless teenagers find a new excuse to be unsupervised in the dark for a few hours.

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#172

Post by madrox »

jotm wrote: post #153
madrox wrote: post #97

The pandemic taught me a lot about apocalypse. While people are a lot slower to buy into collective action and changing their way of life than I thought, society is far more robust than I expected. Covid looked nothing like a pandemic film, thank god. With that in mind, I have some ideas on what programming will look like in 30 years: 1. New frameworks and abstractions for making apps even more disposable while maint…

1. Well, d'uh. Also, everything will require a network connection (which is where ubiquitous Internet via cable or satellite comes in). No Internet? Pfft, what, do you live without electricity, too? 2. Pay for these kinds of professions (ever increasing complexity, whether necessary or self-made + decently mentally taxing) will only go up. Not everyone can be a programmer, or a lawyer, doctor, video/audio editor, ele…

The reason I'm low confidence on pay is because I think there will be even more disparity among programmer salaries and the median will be far lower. Will it be possible to make a million a year as an engineer in 30 years (forget inflation for a moment)? Sure. However, I think there will be a lot more engineers making five figures. We're lowering the bar to do simple work all the time. Much like the other professions you mentioned, some make millions...others are far more middle-class.

As for the rest...they were in direct response to this article's predictions. My VR prediction is tongue-in-cheek because it's been "just around the corner" for the last thirty years. It's not far-fetched to think it'll still be "just around the corner" in another 30.

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#173

Post by verisimi »

koshergweilo wrote: post #99
verisimi wrote: post #76

If there is an apocalypse, it looks entirely contrived to me. Spending untold billions to shut down the economy for most of 2 years is something I saw with my own eyes. Sea level rises, and whatever else, not at all. The dire predictions have been coming for decades (remember Al Gore)? And nothing.. I suspect its just a trick that means we hand over greater control and money to the worst of us (government). And if it…

> dire predictions have been coming for decades (remember Al Gore)? And nothing. And I suppose you think that's it's just a coincidence that we're breaking all-time-high temperature records year over year isn't it?

So we are told. If anything, the temperature seems cooler to me.

But do you recollect the climategate scandal? Where historical temperature records were altered?

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#174

Post by lelanthran »

wiredearp wrote: post #165
lelanthran wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, 8 degrees of warming would be much worse than 4 degrees of warming, and could mean the difference between human extinction and the mere collapse of our civilization. I'm assuming celsius, not farenheit. I'm curious why a mere 8 degrees increase leads to human extinction. Is that "8 degrees evenly over the globe"? If so, that most certainly would leave the majority of land arable and comfortably livable…

This guy Mark Lynas studied the models and wrote a book about it, but then he wrote it again based on newer models, so make sure to find the latest one called "Our Final Warning: Six Degrees of Climate Emergency" for a grizzly drilldown into the centigrades towards extinction. Few models deal with warming beyond three degress, in itself a point of some consideration, but the references are all there and here's the sy…

Actually I was kinda hoping for just a model or some peer reviewed conclusions.

I'm just not in the mood to devote a lot of time to what sounds (to me) like hyperbole: If the earth stabilised at +8 degrees celcius I find it hard to understand why the entire earth becomes literally uninhabitable.

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#175

Post by yesbabyyes »

snikeris wrote: post #30
kossTKR wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting! I've always had an intuitive feeling that theories like The Great Filter theory was a pretty arrogant simplification of "actual reality" beyond our narrow biological lenses and even narrower western definition of "life" or even spatial dimensions and time. Just because some western scientist with only 350+ years of somewhat advanced tools, math and imagination can't see "something" doesn't mean something…

The Drake equation handles that case: fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space

Right; the parameter that would be of interest is rather L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

Quoting Wikipedia: "Inserting the above minimum numbers into the equation gives a minimum N of 20. Inserting the maximum numbers gives a maximum of 50,000,000. Drake states that given the uncertainties, the original meeting concluded that N ≈ L, and there were probably between 1000 and 100,000,000 planets with civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy."

As I understand it, at the time it was estimated that a civilization would broadcast during its existence, from the time radio communications started until the fall of civilization (thus the Great Filter).

Now, from our sample size of one, it looks like L would rather be on the order of 100 years (in our case, not because we are trying to hide in the Dark Forest, but because we don't want to waste energy beaming Dallas reruns into space for no good reason).

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#176

Post by Gunax »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #89
Gunax wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When dealing with unknown unknowns any theory can be logical. Maybe extra-terrestrials are more like lumberjacks chopping down trees. Except these lumber jacks avoid *any tree with a bird's nest in it*. Then, we should be as visible as possible. So should we be quiet (ala Dark Forest), or loud? Depends on how you model extra-terrestrials.

Isn't some sort of game theory going to suggest we be quiet then? Because if they exterminate birds nests, we want to be quiet, and if they intentionally avoid bird's nests, they probably will look for them closer before chopping us down.

Hmm, so I am not sure I see why that would be more likely. It sounds like you're saying that exterminators are less effective at detection than lumberjacks--whether by effort or some other reason.

I think you could just as logically conclude the opposite: maybe lumberjacks don't need to exterminate to survive, so they do not put as much effort in, since they are just avoiding us altruistically.

But more generally, this is the sort of problem I have with speculation on unknown unknowns: It's fun to do, but I dont recommend changing any of our decisions based on it because we simply do not know.

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#177

Post by krona »

whatshisface wrote: post #148
dijit wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a widely deployed vaccine. COVID will live with us forever now, a pandemic has a few characteristics which make it so, one of which is capacity to overwhelm healthcare. As soon as covid couldn’t overwhelm our healthcare systems it was over. Now people will die every year with it, just like the flu. Sad reality, but reality nonetheless, the fact we couldn’t handle a lock-down cemented that we would be living w…

The vaccine only lasts six months. I am not sure how "widely deployed" it is anymore.

Children today, and their children, will gain immunity over an entire lifetime through repeated exposure.

So it is with all other coronaviruses, which have been around for millions of years and don't routinely kill older/vulnerable people.

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#178

Post by krona »

KerrAvon wrote: post #137
reggieband wrote: post #94

I have fear that the cathartic pessimism we sometimes enjoy ironically is turning into a chronic fatalism. It's like a habit that has become an addiction. I think the author was in a discussion that started as a fun catharsis for all involved and then devolved into an addictive argument that the author felt they needed to win. There is a cliché which goes: "Expect the best. Prepare for the worst". Articles like this…

You want to provide a reason based in reality for that level of optimism at the present time? It seems like pessimism is currently warranted absent major upheavals that would change the political situation worldwide, which would bring their own issues.

2.5%[0] of the world GDP just doesn't sound very apocalyptic to most people. Especially when you factor in GDP growth projections over the next century.

[0] https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

Re: Programming in the Apocalypse

#180

Post by alcover »

nostrademons wrote: post #27

For me, the big story is going to be supply-chain breakup and de-globalization. The author touches on this a bit, but completely misses the implication. The programming languages that will best survive the apocalypse are the ones that can run on chips that best survive the apocalypse! I think that there're be a big turn toward highly-efficient compiled languages: Rust and Go are well-positioned for this, C will still…

I fully agree with you. The writing's on the wall for wasteful computing, not just for the obvious SUVs, suburbia or mass-tourism.

Energy cost rules everything. The current deluge of web media and JS-obese apps will one day turn to a careful trickle.

Post reply on HN