5 ms·

this could be said about computers back in the day too. they used to take up entire floors, now they fit on your pocket. i suspect something similar applies for

• moloch-hai 4y ago
  Cars are mature tech. Can you fit one in your pocket?
  • z3phyr 4y ago
    Yeah. RC cars can fit in your pockets. But you can't be the passengers.
  • p1mrx 4y ago
    Sure, you can buy a 1:76 scale electric car for around $80.
    • moloch-hai 4y ago
      In other words, no.
  • rcme 4y ago
    What is a car? Is it 4 wheels, a driver seat, passenger seat, three read seats, and a trunk? Or is it an efficient means for getting from point A to B on paved roadways? If a "car" is the latter, then there have been plenty of advancements. Electric scooters and bikes are two pieces of tech you can very easily take with you. Your car analogy doesn't really work. It's like saying "desktop computers are mature tech, can I fit one in my pocket?" No, but you can fit a smartphone in your pocket, which does many of the same things a desktop computer can do.
• djtango 4y ago
  Oof, reactor in my pocket is a tasty prospect. Personal computing and personal transport could get super exciting. Basically a grown up way of saying Iron Man suits one day...
  • moloch-hai 4y ago
    Keeping an ionizing radiation source in one's front pocket could improve the gene pool.
    • jacquesm 4y ago
      The chances of that being an improvement are extremely slim at best.
      • moloch-hai 4y ago
        Individuals willing to do it self-selecting against contributing to the next generation could be a great boon.
• cycomanic 4y ago
  Nuclear reactors are almost as old as computer, yet we have seen nothing like the scaling we have in the semiconductor industry. Part of this is because they half of the power plant is essentially a steam turbine just like in most other thermal power plants. That technology is essentially centuries old. Not much scaling to be done there.
  • EricE 4y ago
    If we put a fraction of R&D into reactors as we have with semiconductors, it would be a VERY different story. Instead we have spent 50 years scared shitless of the nuclear boogyman. The worst proponents of nuclear are so called environmentalists who's feelings over facts have caused far more harm to the environment (mining for rare earths anyone?). If we would have continued research into other than light water reactors instead of abandoning it we'd be burning "nuclear waste" instead of arguing where to bury otherwise useable fuel.
    • Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Fission gets billions of dollars of free public money for research every year and had much more spent in the past. > The worst proponents of nuclear are so called environmentalists who's feelings over facts have caused far more harm to the environment (mining for rare earths anyone?). Modern PV involves less rare earths than a nuclear reactor for the same energy output. DFIG wind generators use none. New batteries use none. Uranium mining on the other hand poisons thousands of km^2, and is almost never properly remediated. Tailings dams of mines that ran out decades ago still need constant maintenance (often on the public dime) to not spew heavy metal laden dust everywhere. > If we would have continued research into other than light water reactors instead of abandoning it we'd be burning "nuclear waste" instead of arguing where to bury otherwise useable fuel. Trillions were spent on 'burning nuclear waste' by which you actually mean creating larger quantities of Pu240 and Pu241 (the worst high level waste) than a burner reactor does and dumping fission products into the ocean. It went nowhere.
      • panick21_ 4y ago