7 ms·

Takimag audiences appreciate non politically correct jokes; a man writes for his audience. If you don't like it, well, I'm sorry you're so sensitive I guess. I'

Takimag audiences appreciate non politically correct jokes; a man writes for his audience. If you don't like it, well, I'm sorry you're so sensitive I guess. I'm not sorry for making jokes. That statement also makes an important point: diabetics had solutions back in the old days 40 years before 2009, and there sure were a lot less people with self-inflicted diabetes then. My dismissals are simply the magnitude of the difference. The comparison class for nerd dildos is ... the invention of the computer and networking technology in the first place in the decades before. The invention of the computer and associated networking technology is a vast increase in human power. Smart phones are a convenience, and a democratization of old technology; not a categorically new thing which insanely changes people's way of life. Even in 1969 (now that it's been 50 years), one could put a nickel in a pay phone and summon a cab. It worked about as well as Uber does in most circumstances. In cities, where you're most likely to use such services, you could also just wave at a taxi. I did it for 3 months earlier this year in Lisbon: it worked just fine, and was often faster than uber! The sad thing, to me, is people really think their networked electrical dingus is comparable to something like computers -to say nothing of antibiotics, the atom bomb, spaceflight and so on. I mean, you're in good company: no less a personage than Jerry Pournelle made the same argument you are making here. But it's still wrong!

zamfi 7y ago
You are missing my point, or at least not really addressing it, so perhaps I wasn't clear. Your dismissals are "just about magnitude of difference", but your supporting examples are also about magnitude of difference, you are just choosing not to frame them that way. > That statement also makes an important point: diabetics had solutions back in the old days 40 years before 2009, and there sure were a lot less people with self-inflicted diabetes then. > Smart phones are a convenience, and a democratization of old technology; not a categorically new thing which insanely changes people's way of life. Even in 1969 (now that it's been 50 years), one could put a nickel in a pal phone and summon a cab. I can make this argument about anything you listed as being "progress" from 1909-1959. People who now fly could have driven, or taken the train, or rode on horseback. Flying is just faster, right? The jet engine is just an evolutionary change over the turboprop. The atom bomb is just a really big bomb, right? Couldn't you just drop 10,000 equivalent bombs? And that's me trying to take you seriously -- one of your examples is "fuel-injected internal combustion engines", which you claim is a bigger "invention" than anything that's happened in computing since 1959. In 1959, computers did almost nothing for almost nobody. You are taking an entire half century of advances in computing and saying they are irrelevant because you can draw some "fundamental" line in 1959 that everything was done before. But if we still had 1959-level computers our society would be, to use your words, insanely different. So what makes 1959-2009 "not progress"? You started with a thesis and selected your evidence to match. What you write is "almost self-evidently true" because your examples are extremely selective. It "pisses people off" because you're trying to deceive them and they can see it. Look, the ridiculous part of this argument is that I actually agree with you: I think the pace of technological development has slowed and that it's a problem. But you're making extreme claims that are just wrong, and your argument is based in some kind of weird definition of the world looking different than before that I can't relate to. You write in your piece: "as such, I don’t think the world of 50 years hence will look very technologically different from the world now." If you already don't think 2019 looks very different from 1969, then, sure, 2069 might not look very different from 2019 either. But I venture that if we transported you back to 1969 you're be complaining about the lack of progress since 1919 too, because you can make that same argument by cherry-picking facts. Each half-century of technological progress has looked different from the last. If you're looking for the type of progress that happened in the previous 50 years you'll miss the forest for the trees, just as you've done here. Some of the grumpy people who were expecting the continuation of development of the railroads and giant industrial machines from 1859-1909 probably looked at the bio breakthroughs and jet engines and electrification of 1909-1959 as not being the same kind of progress. ("Planes were invented in 1903!") We won't really know what mattered from 1959-2009 until 2059, and I suspect we will see a ton of groundbreaking "invention" work making real changes in people's lives when we look back from 2059. (Just look at the ads from 1959 and tell me how much of that garbage really still matters.) And also: > Takimag audiences appreciate non politically correct jokes; a man writes for his audience. If you don't like it, well, I'm sorry you're so sensitive I guess. I'm not sorry for making jokes. That's nice. I'm glad there's an audience out there for you that also finds humor in mocking human illness. Diversity provides strength.
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  >I can make this argument about anything you listed as being "progress" from 1909-1959. People who now fly could have driven, or taken the train, or rode on horseback. Flying is just faster, right? Flying is categorically vastly different than ... taking the train. So is space flight. >The jet engine is just an evolutionary change over the turboprop. Um, the jet engine came before the turboprop, so, in fact, no. The jet engine was indeed an improvement over other kinds of heat engines; not only were they more efficient (which is why they're used in energy production, and, say, turboprops), they enabled vastly faster and safer flight, are vastly more reliable (which is why they're used on ships and in prop driven planes instead of piston engines), and are very, very physically different from more complex internal combustion engines. It's not the atom bomb, but there sure aren't too many commonly used things invented between 1959 and the present which have increased human power over nature the way the jet engine did. Even if you put the cell phone in the same class of improvement as the jet engine (I don't, but I'd concede the point for the sake of argument): that's one thing. > The atom bomb is just a really big bomb, right? Couldn't you just drop 10,000 equivalent bombs? Of course not: this is ridiculous. With 10,000 nukes you could pretty much wipe out civilized life. It is categorically vastly different. It is a factors of 100000 difference in power available to human beings. There has been no such change in the most recent 50 years which can compare to the bomb at all. And that's just one of the cataclysmic inventions of the 1919->1969 years. > In 1959, computers did almost nothing for almost nobody. You are taking an entire half century of advances in computing and saying they are irrelevant because you can draw some "fundamental" line in 1959 that everything was done before. But if we still had 1959-level computers our society would be, to use your words, insanely different. You really need to read up on your history. In 1959, computers were doing: atomic weapon and nuclear reactor design, networked atomic weapon defense (the SAGE system was in place and operational -and ran until the 1980s, FWIIW it also had a graphical user interface, not conceptually unlike that on your nerd dingus), running large corporations, guiding missiles and other autonomous vehicles, running banks, it was being used for early AI experiments, it was being used in engine design, climatology, it had huge impact on physics and engineering and pretty much everything else. It made things possible which were simply impossible in the 1919 date 50 years prior. The things we've done since then in computation are obviously progress, and important, but there have been no huge category changes such as the invention of the computer. > So what makes 1959-2009 "not progress"? I never said those years were not progress. Fourier transforms, coding theory and so on were great leaps forward that made new things possible. But they were nowhere near the leap forward that the invention of the computer was in the first place. The invention of the computer happened in the years before 1959; it really did change everything in a categorical way. I can't think of a single thing since 1959 which compares to the invention of the computer. Or antibiotics. Or the human harnessing of atomic energy. Or space flight. > I venture that if we transported you back to 1969 you're be complaining about the lack of progress since 1919 too... In 1969, absolutely nobody could make the argument that antibiotics, the atom bomb, computers, space flight, (autonomous) guided missiles meant there was no progress since 1919. Most people in 1969 fully expected we'd live in the world of "2001 a space odyssey" by 2001; with sentient computers, nuclear interplanetary flight, space tourism, moon bases, routine hypersonic flight, suspended animation, video calls (which didn't become routine until ~ 10 years later). Lots of people thought Clarke/Kubrick were too conservative in their predictions! They did get flat screens right though! The reason everyone thought the world would be so ... futuristic in 2001 -futuristic to the point these innovations are now considered to be ridiculously optimistic, is because the years between 1919 and 1969 (to say nothing for 1869->1919) had so much ridiculously and egregiously giant progress. That's my point! Progress has inarguably slowed: the end. Denying it is silly. If you're not denying it, well, I'm glad we agree! If you agree and are saying you don't like my arguments; which arguments would you make?
scarface74 7y ago
Takimag audiences appreciate non politically correct jokes; a man writes for his audience. Is your audience filled with intellectually non curious people? Your description of insulin is factually incorrect, leads to more ignorance. I knew there was a difference but many don’t. Smart phones are a convenience, and a democratization of old technology; not a categorically new thing which insanely changes people's way of life. Having a phone in everyone's pocket -- especially in developing countries has led to a completely new economy for the unbanked. In cities, where you're most likely to use such services, you could also just wave at a taxi. I did it for 3 months earlier this year in Lisbon: Unless you're a person of color and statiscally, cab drivers were less likely to stop for you....
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  I refuse to engage with your ridiculous virtue signalling. You can do that somewhere else with someone who will be impressed. Nobody is denying smart phones have had a large impact on the world. I do deny they are anywhere near in importance to, say, the invention of the computer, space flight, the atom bomb or antibiotics. There is absolutely no comparison. It's like comparing the invention of a specific kind of internal combustion engine to ... the invention of the heat engine in the first place. The harnessing of heat into mechanical energy was a cataclysmic event for humanity. It made possible industrial civilization. The invention, say, of the diesel engine was an improvement which also had consequences. It's not really comparable to "heat engines" though!
  - scarface74 7y ago
    So it’s “virtue signaling” that a goal for a blog that you hope to turn into a book should be factually correct?
    - scottlocklin 7y ago
      You've made a bunch of moralistic hogwash arguments about matters of fact: I do indeed call that virtue signalling. In the real world of matter, physics and technology, that doesn't mean you win the argument. FWIIW, the spread of this sort of moosh headed moralistic thinking and the ensuing witch hunts is something I'd identify as an authentic technological regress, and one of the reasons it's harder to get anything useful done. If you'd like to make a point of fact, I'm happy to debate it with you.

zamfi 7y ago

You are missing my point, or at least not really addressing it, so perhaps I wasn't clear. Your dismissals are "just about magnitude of difference", but your supporting examples are also about magnitude of difference, you are just choosing not to frame them that way. > That statement also makes an important point: diabetics had solutions back in the old days 40 years before 2009, and there sure were a lot less people with self-inflicted diabetes then. > Smart phones are a convenience, and a democratization of old technology; not a categorically new thing which insanely changes people's way of life. Even in 1969 (now that it's been 50 years), one could put a nickel in a pal phone and summon a cab. I can make this argument about anything you listed as being "progress" from 1909-1959. People who now fly could have driven, or taken the train, or rode on horseback. Flying is just faster, right? The jet engine is just an evolutionary change over the turboprop. The atom bomb is just a really big bomb, right? Couldn't you just drop 10,000 equivalent bombs? And that's me trying to take you seriously -- one of your examples is "fuel-injected internal combustion engines", which you claim is a bigger "invention" than anything that's happened in computing since 1959. In 1959, computers did almost nothing for almost nobody. You are taking an entire half century of advances in computing and saying they are irrelevant because you can draw some "fundamental" line in 1959 that everything was done before. But if we still had 1959-level computers our society would be, to use your words, insanely different. So what makes 1959-2009 "not progress"? You started with a thesis and selected your evidence to match. What you write is "almost self-evidently true" because your examples are extremely selective. It "pisses people off" because you're trying to deceive them and they can see it. Look, the ridiculous part of this argument is that I actually agree with you: I think the pace of technological development has slowed and that it's a problem. But you're making extreme claims that are just wrong, and your argument is based in some kind of weird definition of the world looking different than before that I can't relate to. You write in your piece: "as such, I don’t think the world of 50 years hence will look very technologically different from the world now." If you already don't think 2019 looks very different from 1969, then, sure, 2069 might not look very different from 2019 either. But I venture that if we transported you back to 1969 you're be complaining about the lack of progress since 1919 too, because you can make that same argument by cherry-picking facts. Each half-century of technological progress has looked different from the last. If you're looking for the type of progress that happened in the previous 50 years you'll miss the forest for the trees, just as you've done here. Some of the grumpy people who were expecting the continuation of development of the railroads and giant industrial machines from 1859-1909 probably looked at the bio breakthroughs and jet engines and electrification of 1909-1959 as not being the same kind of progress. ("Planes were invented in 1903!") We won't really know what mattered from 1959-2009 until 2059, and I suspect we will see a ton of groundbreaking "invention" work making real changes in people's lives when we look back from 2059. (Just look at the ads from 1959 and tell me how much of that garbage really still matters.) And also: > Takimag audiences appreciate non politically correct jokes; a man writes for his audience. If you don't like it, well, I'm sorry you're so sensitive I guess. I'm not sorry for making jokes. That's nice. I'm glad there's an audience out there for you that also finds humor in mocking human illness. Diversity provides strength.

scottlocklin 7y ago
>I can make this argument about anything you listed as being "progress" from 1909-1959. People who now fly could have driven, or taken the train, or rode on horseback. Flying is just faster, right? Flying is categorically vastly different than ... taking the train. So is space flight. >The jet engine is just an evolutionary change over the turboprop. Um, the jet engine came before the turboprop, so, in fact, no. The jet engine was indeed an improvement over other kinds of heat engines; not only were they more efficient (which is why they're used in energy production, and, say, turboprops), they enabled vastly faster and safer flight, are vastly more reliable (which is why they're used on ships and in prop driven planes instead of piston engines), and are very, very physically different from more complex internal combustion engines. It's not the atom bomb, but there sure aren't too many commonly used things invented between 1959 and the present which have increased human power over nature the way the jet engine did. Even if you put the cell phone in the same class of improvement as the jet engine (I don't, but I'd concede the point for the sake of argument): that's one thing. > The atom bomb is just a really big bomb, right? Couldn't you just drop 10,000 equivalent bombs? Of course not: this is ridiculous. With 10,000 nukes you could pretty much wipe out civilized life. It is categorically vastly different. It is a factors of 100000 difference in power available to human beings. There has been no such change in the most recent 50 years which can compare to the bomb at all. And that's just one of the cataclysmic inventions of the 1919->1969 years. > In 1959, computers did almost nothing for almost nobody. You are taking an entire half century of advances in computing and saying they are irrelevant because you can draw some "fundamental" line in 1959 that everything was done before. But if we still had 1959-level computers our society would be, to use your words, insanely different. You really need to read up on your history. In 1959, computers were doing: atomic weapon and nuclear reactor design, networked atomic weapon defense (the SAGE system was in place and operational -and ran until the 1980s, FWIIW it also had a graphical user interface, not conceptually unlike that on your nerd dingus), running large corporations, guiding missiles and other autonomous vehicles, running banks, it was being used for early AI experiments, it was being used in engine design, climatology, it had huge impact on physics and engineering and pretty much everything else. It made things possible which were simply impossible in the 1919 date 50 years prior. The things we've done since then in computation are obviously progress, and important, but there have been no huge category changes such as the invention of the computer. > So what makes 1959-2009 "not progress"? I never said those years were not progress. Fourier transforms, coding theory and so on were great leaps forward that made new things possible. But they were nowhere near the leap forward that the invention of the computer was in the first place. The invention of the computer happened in the years before 1959; it really did change everything in a categorical way. I can't think of a single thing since 1959 which compares to the invention of the computer. Or antibiotics. Or the human harnessing of atomic energy. Or space flight. > I venture that if we transported you back to 1969 you're be complaining about the lack of progress since 1919 too... In 1969, absolutely nobody could make the argument that antibiotics, the atom bomb, computers, space flight, (autonomous) guided missiles meant there was no progress since 1919. Most people in 1969 fully expected we'd live in the world of "2001 a space odyssey" by 2001; with sentient computers, nuclear interplanetary flight, space tourism, moon bases, routine hypersonic flight, suspended animation, video calls (which didn't become routine until ~ 10 years later). Lots of people thought Clarke/Kubrick were too conservative in their predictions! They did get flat screens right though! The reason everyone thought the world would be so ... futuristic in 2001 -futuristic to the point these innovations are now considered to be ridiculously optimistic, is because the years between 1919 and 1969 (to say nothing for 1869->1919) had so much ridiculously and egregiously giant progress. That's my point! Progress has inarguably slowed: the end. Denying it is silly. If you're not denying it, well, I'm glad we agree! If you agree and are saying you don't like my arguments; which arguments would you make?

scarface74 7y ago

Takimag audiences appreciate non politically correct jokes; a man writes for his audience. Is your audience filled with intellectually non curious people? Your description of insulin is factually incorrect, leads to more ignorance. I knew there was a difference but many don’t. Smart phones are a convenience, and a democratization of old technology; not a categorically new thing which insanely changes people's way of life. Having a phone in everyone's pocket -- especially in developing countries has led to a completely new economy for the unbanked. In cities, where you're most likely to use such services, you could also just wave at a taxi. I did it for 3 months earlier this year in Lisbon: Unless you're a person of color and statiscally, cab drivers were less likely to stop for you....

scottlocklin 7y ago
I refuse to engage with your ridiculous virtue signalling. You can do that somewhere else with someone who will be impressed. Nobody is denying smart phones have had a large impact on the world. I do deny they are anywhere near in importance to, say, the invention of the computer, space flight, the atom bomb or antibiotics. There is absolutely no comparison. It's like comparing the invention of a specific kind of internal combustion engine to ... the invention of the heat engine in the first place. The harnessing of heat into mechanical energy was a cataclysmic event for humanity. It made possible industrial civilization. The invention, say, of the diesel engine was an improvement which also had consequences. It's not really comparable to "heat engines" though!
- scarface74 7y ago
  So it’s “virtue signaling” that a goal for a blog that you hope to turn into a book should be factually correct?
  - scottlocklin 7y ago
    You've made a bunch of moralistic hogwash arguments about matters of fact: I do indeed call that virtue signalling. In the real world of matter, physics and technology, that doesn't mean you win the argument. FWIIW, the spread of this sort of moosh headed moralistic thinking and the ensuing witch hunts is something I'd identify as an authentic technological regress, and one of the reasons it's harder to get anything useful done. If you'd like to make a point of fact, I'm happy to debate it with you.