5 ms·
"Nanotechnology never had its Facebook." "And while Facebook, like the most celebrated of Silicon Valley’s startups, went from idea to ubiquitous product in le
by twsted 11y ago
"Nanotechnology never had its Facebook."
"And while Facebook, like the most celebrated of Silicon Valley’s startups, went from idea to ubiquitous product in less than a decade, most nanotechnology applications taking much longer to find a market."
Does anyone, even here on HN, think that it is really absurd to make these comparisons? Comparing Facebook with an advanced technology? Come on.
- brownbat 11y agoOh, I don't know, I've worried about the Facebook grey goo scenario for years.
- ajross 11y agoThat's sort of the point, isn't it?: Showing how the market's idea of a "successful megabusiness" is sort of incompatible with the fundamental science required to enable that stuff at all. Really, we're all still riding the 1970's VLSI wave, finding new stuff enabled by that basic technology. But we still feel the need to talk about whatever is coming next.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago> "Does anyone, even here on HN, think that it is really absurd to make these comparisons? Comparing Facebook with an advanced technology? Come on." It is a bizarre comparison, but the author appears to be using it as a colloquial way to describe a runaway success, which makes sense even if the industries are not directly related. From the limited knowledge I have on nanotech, I'd suggest the closest it's come to a runaway success so far has been in superhydrophobic coatings. If a food-safe and long-lasting superhydrophobic coating was discovered, I could imagine the market would be huge. Consider plates/bowls/cutlery that you'd never/rarely need to wash up, that could take off massively. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhydrophobic_coating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhydrophobic_coating
- Apocryphon 11y agoI'd think 3D printing would be a far better comparison to nanotech.