3 ms·

It's like we're back in 1960 for some reason: https://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm https://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.

It's like we're back in 1960 for some reason: https://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm https://idlewords.com/talks/web_design_first_100_years.htm > The people designing the planes of tomorrow got so caught up in the technology that they forgot to ask the very important question, “what are we building this for?”

netsharc 4y ago
Damn, I remember being really intrigued by this article, when I saw it ages ago, but I lost the URL. I'm glad to have found it again.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> they forgot to ask the very important question, “what are we building this for?” To get from point A to point B more quickly.
- lazide 4y ago
  With some co-operation of the folks at point B, we can currently get about 50-80% of the value of being physically there in a handful of milliseconds!
- lm28469 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > nobody really want or need tbh I’ll raise my hand. Instead of going to Europe or Asia from the East Coast requiring a multi-day itinerary on account of the travel time, a straight in-and-out route would be more efficient. It should be extremely expensive. But there is legitimate demand for that travel, both for people and for freight (e.g. organs, custom-manufactured components, et cetera).
    - geysersam 4y ago
      > (e.g. organs, custom-manufactured components, et cetera) Serious question for someone who knows. How common is it to have an organ ready for transplant, but not time enough to wait the hours it woukd take to transport it across the country? Seems quite unlikely to me that this will be the dominating use case for the technology. Hypothetically, if I was an investor interested in making investments that save peoples lives, I'd suspect this is not the most worthwhile investment I could make.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > quite unlikely to me that this will be the dominating use case for the technology Low-latency long haul doesn’t exist, so it’s tough to track. That said, I agree this would be a fringe use. (Disaster relief is the common, if commercially unrealistic, answer.)
    - lm28469 4y ago
      We need _technology that will pollute even more_ to _continue doing stuff that pollute a lot even though we know we shouldn't do it, but faster_ ~15 hours to get to the other side of the world is fast enough, if it isn't you have a very very weird problem that affects 0.000001% of the world and we shouldn't care about it
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > ~15 hours to get to the other side of the world is fast enough So someone did ask “what are we building this for” [1]. You just don’t like the answer. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35438423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35438423
        lm28469 4y ago
        [flagged]
  - andai 4y ago
    Would be nice if we could get from point A to B of the airport with a bit less hassle.

netsharc 4y ago

Damn, I remember being really intrigued by this article, when I saw it ages ago, but I lost the URL. I'm glad to have found it again.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> they forgot to ask the very important question, “what are we building this for?” To get from point A to point B more quickly.

lazide 4y ago
With some co-operation of the folks at point B, we can currently get about 50-80% of the value of being physically there in a handful of milliseconds!
lm28469 4y ago
[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > nobody really want or need tbh I’ll raise my hand. Instead of going to Europe or Asia from the East Coast requiring a multi-day itinerary on account of the travel time, a straight in-and-out route would be more efficient. It should be extremely expensive. But there is legitimate demand for that travel, both for people and for freight (e.g. organs, custom-manufactured components, et cetera).
  - geysersam 4y ago
    > (e.g. organs, custom-manufactured components, et cetera) Serious question for someone who knows. How common is it to have an organ ready for transplant, but not time enough to wait the hours it woukd take to transport it across the country? Seems quite unlikely to me that this will be the dominating use case for the technology. Hypothetically, if I was an investor interested in making investments that save peoples lives, I'd suspect this is not the most worthwhile investment I could make.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > quite unlikely to me that this will be the dominating use case for the technology Low-latency long haul doesn’t exist, so it’s tough to track. That said, I agree this would be a fringe use. (Disaster relief is the common, if commercially unrealistic, answer.)
  - lm28469 4y ago
    We need _technology that will pollute even more_ to _continue doing stuff that pollute a lot even though we know we shouldn't do it, but faster_ ~15 hours to get to the other side of the world is fast enough, if it isn't you have a very very weird problem that affects 0.000001% of the world and we shouldn't care about it
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > ~15 hours to get to the other side of the world is fast enough So someone did ask “what are we building this for” [1]. You just don’t like the answer. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35438423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35438423
      - lm28469 4y ago
        [flagged]
- andai 4y ago
  Would be nice if we could get from point A to B of the airport with a bit less hassle.