5 ms·
The YouTube Time Machine
- mkramlich 16y agogreat idea! could be useful resource for folks studying history of a certain year or period
- andre3k1 16y agoAwesome, but the "Watch Next Video" button doesn't seem to be working for me (starting in 1860). All in all, the video does make me realize just how far we've come in 100 years. I'm so happy to be during the turn of this century versus the turn of the last century.
- natrius 16y agoI'm sure they said they same thing at the turn of last century. And the century before.
- kiba 16y agoBut this could be the century where people will be comtemplating more than 100 years lifespan! Imagine all the old people becoming youthful overnight, changing plans for hundred of million of people. No longer will they remain feeble adults living in their twilight years, they will be badass on the market using their superior experience to out-compete us youngsters.
- glhaynes 16y agoIf we ever "fix" aging, imagine how paranoid people will be of traumatic injury.
- kiba 16y agoYou will also have to account for cryonic tech and ever improving safety standard.
- mcav 16y agoIf we fix aging, perhaps people will be in less of a hurry, and be safer in the process.
- CamperBob 16y agoYeah, to the extent of turning into Ents. No, thanks.
- Empact 16y agoPerhaps, and I've certainly thought this. But as the devil's advocate: would the net present value of 60 years of life is much different from 600 years of life, after discounting? If we use the prevent value of recurring payments equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_value#Annuities.2C_perpetuities_and_other_common_forms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_value#Annuities.2C_perp...) to consider the present value of 60 years, with a modest discounting rate of 6%, we get: > = 16.161427705238 The same number for 600 years is: > = 16.6666666666667 For context, the incremental difference between 50 and 60 years is about the same as for the additional 500+. That far out the incremental present value of a year of life drops to basically zero. Which is to say, for many people (the vast majority, I might guess), the value of these far-off experiences may end up being academic, and thus not factor into their decisions particularly strongly. Certainly some people would be affected - those with low subjective discounting rates, which is to say, future-oriented people. And certainly on the margin it would make people more cautious, but if the premise holds, the effect might not be as far-reaching as you suspect.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- philwelch 16y agoThis isn't the first century where men have tried to discover a fountain of youth, but I doubt it will be the last, either.
- planckscnst 16y agoThe "watch next video" is meant to move to another video from the same year; to move to the next year, you either move the sider or edit the URL.
- pontifier 16y agoSo looking at this, and extrapolating I see some people in the future picking a time period and living there in all but fact. I envision the matrix, but set in whatever time period people choose. I can see people choosing to live in say the roaring 20's or the 1970's... In fact, now that I think about it places like that do exist... While on vacation I think I visited a place where people lived and worked as if they were in colonial times.
- daychilde 16y agoI think "vacation" is a critical consideration. I'd love to spend a few days living 'in' a particular time period. And then get back to reality.
- zaidf 16y agoIf ajax was ever under-utilized, it would be on a site like this. Great idea. Annoying refreshes.
- targz 16y agoMuch agree. I see how you want to have a unique url for each year. I think that's a cool idea too, though each time you slide I think it's fine if the url doesn't update. Maybe unique year urls are only for inbound links.
- niels 16y agoYou can use unique urls with ajax. Just use location.hash (url/#something).