4 ms·

But we're reaching a point where we're hitting the limits of Physics in many areas. Like it's hard to imagine an even faster passenger aircraft than the Concor

But we're reaching a point where we're hitting the limits of Physics in many areas. Like it's hard to imagine an even faster passenger aircraft than the Concorde for example.

randomsearch 4y ago
Don’t think this is the problem. I think it’s an allocation of resources problem. Pre 80s a lot of the best and brightest worked in engineering. Post 80s they went into finance and then tech. The latter a mixed bag - brought us Google maps etc but sadly mostly focused on selling ads. That’s the risk I see. We either need to change incentives or change culture to get back to a focus on progress / exploration rather than exploitation.
- jotm 4y ago
  While incentives are pretty fucked (Instacrack being worth more than SpaceX, etc), allocation of labour is not a problem. We simply have a lot more best and brightest in everything. There's so much talent it's unreal. There's not enough money to hire everyone, or technology to equip them in engineering. It's kind of like art (pictures, movies, music, anything) - there's so much of it, so high quality these days that there really isn't anything that will stand out on its own. Same for celebrities, for that matter. Actors/singers/presidents? Meh, go to Instagram and OnlyFans and take your pick. The only reason people 100 years from now will show something as an example of early 00's is marketing and survival.
  - nivenkos 4y ago
    What does "not enough money" even mean? Those people still live and survive - they're just optimising ad spend instead of working on engineering problems or medical research, etc.
- Terry_Roll 4y ago
  >Pre 80s a lot of the best and brightest worked in engineering. >Post 80s they went into finance and then tech. The latter a mixed bag - brought us Google maps etc but sadly mostly focused on selling ads. So you havent been able to tell if search engines make or break a company, product or service with the results it delivers? As weapons go, controlling the economy of other countries through search engine results would be novel and advantageous to the US military!
erklik 4y ago
We don't even have a Concorde though. It's genuinely frustrating to me honestly. I feel like the level of advancement during that time was truly fascinating and it impacted people's life. Today, what do we have? Another iPhone? More faster computers? It's all incremental. Why can't we fly on a Concorde? (I know why obviously). I guess I am sad to see that tech that truly changed people's lives doesn't happen as much anymore.
- bigDinosaur 4y ago
  We didn't actually regress in terms of supersonic flight though, it just got relegated to specialist uses such as military. The actual advantage of the Concorde specifically was less than imagined - basically: would you prefer 7 hours in business or first class on a slower but vastly more spacious jet, or 3.5 hours on a much more cramped one? The Concorde was very fast but ordinary passenger jets are also quite fast, they're no slouches!
  - aleksklarksr 4y ago
    No, jets are slow and they getting slower to be even more economic. 800 km/h is just a fraction of 3500 km/h that planes can do. Bureaucrats are the ones who restricting progress to the point there will be no Wrights, or Jacques-Yves Cousteau or any other inventors. Everything restricted and regulated, controlled.
    - bigDinosaur 4y ago
      It's not and never will be cheaper to fly at 3500km/h compared to 800 km/h though. Would you pay the extra to shave off a few hours?
  - vidarh 4y ago
    It's a problem across any number of areas that an incremental improvement of the same percentage becomes less valuable to most of your potential market as the starting point improves, even as the cost of the improvements often goes up.
  - 4y ago
infofarmer 4y ago
Aircraft in general were famously predicted to be impossible by multiple credible sources. https://bigthink.com/pessimists-archive/air-space-flight-impossible/ https://bigthink.com/pessimists-archive/air-space-flight-imp... Does any science claim or even attempt to estimate its own comprehensiveness? It's all the same bias. We're living in the stone age.
- irthomasthomas 4y ago
  I love your optimism. Fusion is only 10-20 years out, after all.
  - Veedrac 4y ago
    It is legitimately coming sooner than that.
    - irthomasthomas 4y ago
      I can't wait for my fusion powered Tesla self driving cars and robots, next year.

But we're reaching a point where we're hitting the limits of Physics in many areas. Like it's hard to imagine an even faster passenger aircraft than the Concorde for example.

randomsearch 4y ago

Don’t think this is the problem. I think it’s an allocation of resources problem. Pre 80s a lot of the best and brightest worked in engineering. Post 80s they went into finance and then tech. The latter a mixed bag - brought us Google maps etc but sadly mostly focused on selling ads. That’s the risk I see. We either need to change incentives or change culture to get back to a focus on progress / exploration rather than exploitation.

jotm 4y ago
While incentives are pretty fucked (Instacrack being worth more than SpaceX, etc), allocation of labour is not a problem. We simply have a lot more best and brightest in everything. There's so much talent it's unreal. There's not enough money to hire everyone, or technology to equip them in engineering. It's kind of like art (pictures, movies, music, anything) - there's so much of it, so high quality these days that there really isn't anything that will stand out on its own. Same for celebrities, for that matter. Actors/singers/presidents? Meh, go to Instagram and OnlyFans and take your pick. The only reason people 100 years from now will show something as an example of early 00's is marketing and survival.
- nivenkos 4y ago
  What does "not enough money" even mean? Those people still live and survive - they're just optimising ad spend instead of working on engineering problems or medical research, etc.
Terry_Roll 4y ago
>Pre 80s a lot of the best and brightest worked in engineering. >Post 80s they went into finance and then tech. The latter a mixed bag - brought us Google maps etc but sadly mostly focused on selling ads. So you havent been able to tell if search engines make or break a company, product or service with the results it delivers? As weapons go, controlling the economy of other countries through search engine results would be novel and advantageous to the US military!

erklik 4y ago

We don't even have a Concorde though. It's genuinely frustrating to me honestly. I feel like the level of advancement during that time was truly fascinating and it impacted people's life. Today, what do we have? Another iPhone? More faster computers? It's all incremental. Why can't we fly on a Concorde? (I know why obviously). I guess I am sad to see that tech that truly changed people's lives doesn't happen as much anymore.

bigDinosaur 4y ago
We didn't actually regress in terms of supersonic flight though, it just got relegated to specialist uses such as military. The actual advantage of the Concorde specifically was less than imagined - basically: would you prefer 7 hours in business or first class on a slower but vastly more spacious jet, or 3.5 hours on a much more cramped one? The Concorde was very fast but ordinary passenger jets are also quite fast, they're no slouches!
- aleksklarksr 4y ago
  No, jets are slow and they getting slower to be even more economic. 800 km/h is just a fraction of 3500 km/h that planes can do. Bureaucrats are the ones who restricting progress to the point there will be no Wrights, or Jacques-Yves Cousteau or any other inventors. Everything restricted and regulated, controlled.
  - bigDinosaur 4y ago
    It's not and never will be cheaper to fly at 3500km/h compared to 800 km/h though. Would you pay the extra to shave off a few hours?
- vidarh 4y ago
  It's a problem across any number of areas that an incremental improvement of the same percentage becomes less valuable to most of your potential market as the starting point improves, even as the cost of the improvements often goes up.
- 4y ago

infofarmer 4y ago

Aircraft in general were famously predicted to be impossible by multiple credible sources. https://bigthink.com/pessimists-archive/air-space-flight-impossible/ https://bigthink.com/pessimists-archive/air-space-flight-imp... Does any science claim or even attempt to estimate its own comprehensiveness? It's all the same bias. We're living in the stone age.

irthomasthomas 4y ago
I love your optimism. Fusion is only 10-20 years out, after all.
- Veedrac 4y ago
  It is legitimately coming sooner than that.
  - irthomasthomas 4y ago
    I can't wait for my fusion powered Tesla self driving cars and robots, next year.