Ironicaly, the museum of failure fails to load for me.
They should add themselves to the catalogue.
Museum of Failure
31–40 of 79 posts
Re: Museum of Failure
#32This reminds me of an amazing place I stumbled upon while traveling around Croatia: The Museum of Broken Relationships.
It's full of tokens and mementos, both happy and sad, along with stories of relationships that have ended for a variety of different reasons.
Re: Museum of Failure
#33What are the years listed below the items on the home page supposed to denote? The DeLorean dates are "1989-1990", but it was sold, and production ended, in the early 80's. There are symbols next to each date, but I can't find their meanings anywhere on the website.
That was about the point at which I found something else to do with my I-don't-want-to-work time: Back to the Future (in which a DeLorean play a prominent role) was released in 1985. The car itself: 1981. Sooooo, what do those dates signify?
Then the site claims New Coke/Coke II came out in 1981. Umm, try 1985. Olestra? Nope, try again (I'll leave the lookup as an exercise). I know all of these things are wrong at a glance because...well, I'm old, and for example I know that New Coke didn't come out when I was in high school because I was married to my ex-wife at the time, and she hated it. And I saw Back to the Future at the cinema. I was there, man.
So I don't know what those dates are supposed to signify.
Re: Museum of Failure
#34What are the years listed below the items on the home page supposed to denote? The DeLorean dates are "1989-1990", but it was sold, and production ended, in the early 80's. There are symbols next to each date, but I can't find their meanings anywhere on the website.
That was about the point at which I found something else to do with my I-don't-want-to-work time: Back to the Future (in which a DeLorean play a prominent role) was released in 1985. The car itself: 1981. Sooooo, what do those dates signify? Then the site claims New Coke/Coke II came out in 1981. Umm, try 1985. Olestra? Nope, try again (I'll leave the lookup as an exercise). I know all of these things are wrong at a…
[deleted]
Re: Museum of Failure
#35Visited last weekend. Interesting for sure. Funny to see how many times and for how long we've been trying to do VR! Some of the "failures" were unfair IMO, like minitel and Block Buster: It's like saying using wind sails on ships was a failure because it was replaced by steam engines.
Pretty sure wind sails are going to be making a comeback soon.
Re: Museum of Failure
#36Visited last weekend. Interesting for sure. Funny to see how many times and for how long we've been trying to do VR! Some of the "failures" were unfair IMO, like minitel and Block Buster: It's like saying using wind sails on ships was a failure because it was replaced by steam engines.
Pretty sure wind sails are going to be making a comeback soon.
I have been seeing this prediction for a while. What makes you so confident?
Re: Museum of Failure
#37Visited last weekend. Interesting for sure. Funny to see how many times and for how long we've been trying to do VR! Some of the "failures" were unfair IMO, like minitel and Block Buster: It's like saying using wind sails on ships was a failure because it was replaced by steam engines.
Pretty sure wind sails are going to be making a comeback soon.
Traditional sails are very labor intensive, I doubt they will ever make economic sense again. They also take a lot of space that most ships don't have.
The two variations that might go somewhere are kites to save maybe 10% of fuel [1], or some variation of rotor sails [2] on tankers or bulk carriers that have the unobstructed deck space.
1: https://future.hamburg/index.php/en/artikel/skysails-marine-...
Re: Museum of Failure
#38Visited last weekend. Interesting for sure. Funny to see how many times and for how long we've been trying to do VR! Some of the "failures" were unfair IMO, like minitel and Block Buster: It's like saying using wind sails on ships was a failure because it was replaced by steam engines.
VR is just the most recent incarnation of the "3D vision" gimmick every generation will rediscovered and then abandon. We had multiple waves of this fad, starting with the stereoscopic novelty postcards of the 19th century, the many 3D cinema revivals (the Avatar craze even saw the rise of ludicrous 3D TVs), and now Metaverse and its ilk. It always fails because, once the novelty of the effect wears off, people reali…
Alternatively, we try again and again because there's a lot of promise if we get it right, but so far the technology just isn't there for anything sustainable beyond the novelty factor.
This round we got far enough that there are some industry use cases for AR, which shares 99% of its tech with VR. Maybe that will funnel enough money into development to break out of the hype cycle into something sustainable.
Re: Museum of Failure
#39Visited last weekend. Interesting for sure. Funny to see how many times and for how long we've been trying to do VR! Some of the "failures" were unfair IMO, like minitel and Block Buster: It's like saying using wind sails on ships was a failure because it was replaced by steam engines.
VR is just the most recent incarnation of the "3D vision" gimmick every generation will rediscovered and then abandon. We had multiple waves of this fad, starting with the stereoscopic novelty postcards of the 19th century, the many 3D cinema revivals (the Avatar craze even saw the rise of ludicrous 3D TVs), and now Metaverse and its ilk. It always fails because, once the novelty of the effect wears off, people reali…
You say "it always fails", but also it fails because "extra 3d information is not worth the logistic cost".
Couldn't you conceive of a future where the "logistic cost" drops so incredibly low, that the cost is less than the benefit of the extra information?
Re: Museum of Failure
#40Proud to have worked on one of the failures in this exhibit :-)
I also had a number of the products I've worked on land in the Weird Stuff warehouse (and, oddly, another surplus hardware warehouse near Seattle).
Badge of honor :-)