4 ms·

Those who live in the visionary's future do not appreciate how extraordinary that vision was at the time. So much of what you consider "normal tech" today seem

Those who live in the visionary's future do not appreciate how extraordinary that vision was at the time. So much of what you consider "normal tech" today seemed mind-blowing fantasy when predicted. In a world of 16,384-byte 4MHz computers communicating at 110 bits per second, high-res VR via multi-core multi-GHz computers networked at gigabit/s [0] was magic we didn't know how to comprehend. So much linguistic/cognitive representation was lacking that "futuristic" then sounds primitive/confused today. Once you grasp the context it was written it, you may see how insightful & innovative the works were. [0] ...used to watch cat videos and argue with strangers.

cletus 7y ago
So those is wrong on two fronts: we don't live in Neuromancer's future and many of the ideas you attribute to him predate him quite significantly. Technologically augmented humans? Nope. Pervasive VR? Hardly. Dystopian future? Not realty. Corporations supplanting governments? That's a stretch. There was a book from the 1950s or 1960s (the names escapes me) that looe decline in sending bits, the natural conclusion of which was that in the coming decades you would be able to share your experience in real time to anyone else the planet. Off that's not VR I don't know what is. Gibson may have popularized it in sci-fi (although I'm not entirely convinced of that) but nostalgia really seems to be trying to cast there present in Gibsob's future more than I think is justices.