3 ms·

Where is the evidence for better batteries (or capacitors)? Powering all the portable junk seems to rest on this hand wave. Then again, I'm too pessimistic to

Where is the evidence for better batteries (or capacitors)? Powering all the portable junk seems to rest on this hand wave. Then again, I'm too pessimistic to believe in all this singularity stuff. Ironic that Vernor Vinge used the phrase "age of shattered dreams" in Deepness in the Sky, considering he is also associated with the singularity thing.

jodrellblank 16y ago
How is it ironic that a guy who wrote singularity fiction also wrote not-singularity fiction? > Then again, I'm too pessimistic to believe in all this singularity stuff. Uh huh. http://lesswrong.com/lw/ym/cynical_about_cynicism/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ym/cynical_about_cynicism/ > Where is the evidence for better batteries (or capacitors)? There's Lithium-Air on the horizon with a suggested 10x storage over Lithium-Ion, then there's the observation that large batteries once powered large mobile phones for hours and now small batteries power small phones for days, then there's fuel cell research, motion power (Seiko Kinetic watches, some footwear) solar phones (Samsung Blue Earth), body heat hasn't really been tried yet, etc.
- gloob 16y ago
  As near as I can tell, the summary of your lesswrong link is something like: "Some people disagree with me. But they're just playing games about social status!" Which, I mean, is cool and all, but it's perhaps possible that maybe some people are just more cautious than others, for example. There have to be better arguments than fabricating someone's motives out of thin air and attacking those.
  - jodrellblank 16y ago
    A summary is "some people disagree with things, but can't give any specifics of what things they think are mistaken and the evidence which makes them think that. I [the author] have to assume that instead of looking at the evidence and believing the most probable thing they can find, they are instead disagreeing for other reasons which have nothing to do with truth or accuracy or evidence based decision making". but it's perhaps possible that maybe some people are just more cautious than others, for example Cautious is saying "I wont invest in xyz singularity technology until I'm convinced it works" or "I'm not planning my retirement fund based on living to 150 until I see people routinely living to 150 starting where I am now" or "I've seen 80 claims of new technology fall through, so this has to have extra strong evidence to convince me it's not in the same class". Saying "I'm too pessimistic for this happy happy future world" isn't cautious, it's something else. (Also: perhaps, possible, maybe, just, for example? I can't say why but you are strongly hammering into your post that you think someone is an idiot you have to speak down to. Me, or the article author, or both. That's the kind of social signalling you dismiss yet you are doing it (and so am I. Everyone does).

jodrellblank 16y ago

How is it ironic that a guy who wrote singularity fiction also wrote not-singularity fiction? > Then again, I'm too pessimistic to believe in all this singularity stuff. Uh huh. http://lesswrong.com/lw/ym/cynical_about_cynicism/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ym/cynical_about_cynicism/ > Where is the evidence for better batteries (or capacitors)? There's Lithium-Air on the horizon with a suggested 10x storage over Lithium-Ion, then there's the observation that large batteries once powered large mobile phones for hours and now small batteries power small phones for days, then there's fuel cell research, motion power (Seiko Kinetic watches, some footwear) solar phones (Samsung Blue Earth), body heat hasn't really been tried yet, etc.

gloob 16y ago
As near as I can tell, the summary of your lesswrong link is something like: "Some people disagree with me. But they're just playing games about social status!" Which, I mean, is cool and all, but it's perhaps possible that maybe some people are just more cautious than others, for example. There have to be better arguments than fabricating someone's motives out of thin air and attacking those.
- jodrellblank 16y ago
  A summary is "some people disagree with things, but can't give any specifics of what things they think are mistaken and the evidence which makes them think that. I [the author] have to assume that instead of looking at the evidence and believing the most probable thing they can find, they are instead disagreeing for other reasons which have nothing to do with truth or accuracy or evidence based decision making". but it's perhaps possible that maybe some people are just more cautious than others, for example Cautious is saying "I wont invest in xyz singularity technology until I'm convinced it works" or "I'm not planning my retirement fund based on living to 150 until I see people routinely living to 150 starting where I am now" or "I've seen 80 claims of new technology fall through, so this has to have extra strong evidence to convince me it's not in the same class". Saying "I'm too pessimistic for this happy happy future world" isn't cautious, it's something else. (Also: perhaps, possible, maybe, just, for example? I can't say why but you are strongly hammering into your post that you think someone is an idiot you have to speak down to. Me, or the article author, or both. That's the kind of social signalling you dismiss yet you are doing it (and so am I. Everyone does).