Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#1

Post by andsoitis » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 1:18 PM UTC

Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)
scottlocklin.wordpress.com

Re: Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#2

Post by bitcharmer » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 1:55 PM UTC

Not my field at all but I read this piece and an interview with him [0]. I don't know, this guy comes across as an arrogant asshole to me. I struggled to finish the interview.

[0] https://niccolo.substack.com/p/the-troms-interviews-scott-lo...

Re: Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#3

Post by petermcneeley » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 1:57 PM UTC

The human that wrote this is actually a enormous assemblage of nanorobotics albeit of the carbon variety.

Re: Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#4

Post by dc-programmer » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 2:00 PM UTC

People joke about how hard it is to exit vim but I don’t think I’ve ever been able to exit nano without just closing the tab

Re: Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#5

Post by tkgally » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 2:04 PM UTC

This was written in 2010. Has the situation—hype?—around nanotechnology changed since then?

Re: Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#6

Post by kklisura » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 2:06 PM UTC

dc-programmer wrote: post #4

People joke about how hard it is to exit vim but I don’t think I’ve ever been able to exit nano without just closing the tab

This is about nanotech not about nano (editor).

Re: Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#7

Post by mistercow » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 2:08 PM UTC

> We don’t even have micromachines. Mechanical objects on microscales do not exist.

Huh? Aren’t micromirror devices made of millions of microscale mechanical objects?

The first DMD page that came up for me is a TI DLP4500, which has about an 11mm diagonal and is about 1000 mirrors wide, putting the individual mirrors, and their tiny hinges at around 10 microns. What definition of “microscale” is the author using?

Edit: I didn’t realize that this article is 12 years old, but it doesn’t matter. DMDs had been in use in consumer products for almost a decade when this was written.

Re: Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#8

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 2:08 PM UTC

dc-programmer wrote: post #4

People joke about how hard it is to exit vim but I don’t think I’ve ever been able to exit nano without just closing the tab

[deleted]

Re: Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#9

Post by trelane » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 2:08 PM UTC

kklisura wrote: post #6

dc-programmer wrote: post #4

People joke about how hard it is to exit vim but I don’t think I’ve ever been able to exit nano without just closing the tab

This is about nanotech not about nano (editor).

I think the comment you're responding to was nano, (the joke.) ;)

Re: Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)

#10

Post by seunosewa » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 2:09 PM UTC

bitcharmer wrote: post #2

Not my field at all but I read this piece and an interview with him [0]. I don't know, this guy comes across as an arrogant asshole to me. I struggled to finish the interview. [0] https://niccolo.substack.com/p/the-troms-interviews-scott-lo...

What's the best nanotech achievement so far, though?