5 ms·

iTunes was progressive. AppleTV is garbage. Apple makes toys for adults; nothing we can't live without. Solar is accessible to the masses. Cloudflare seems us

iTunes was progressive. AppleTV is garbage. Apple makes toys for adults; nothing we can't live without. Solar is accessible to the masses. Cloudflare seems useful, until you need them. Never trust a company headed by a lawyer. Netflix makes good stuff, but the bad softcore lesbian porn in every show is getting tiring. (Protip: an obligatory lesbian romance does not make boring female characters interesting!). Wokeness and all, TV is better than the cheesy 90s-00s. TVs themselves are cheaper, but that's not the result of FAANG. Most computer parts are cheaper than in the 90s too. Software is sortof better. The nightmare of fucking with IRQ settings to get SoundBlaster to work were behind us, but have since been replaced now replaced with virtual environments, cloud bullshit and virtual environments within cloud bullshit. We had a decent run of software that "just worked" until recently. Google Search is garbage now. Used to be revolutionary. AI is cool if you like motel art and corporate literature. And ignore the misery of out-of-work creatives. Your washing machine is the same as it was in the 70s, only now the basin of water is turned sideways and a bunch of expensive computer chips are stacked around it. Laundry reinvented, now with more mildew and electrical problems! Microwaves are exactly the same. Food doesn't cook itself, but you can buy a fridge for $10k that shows you what's inside-- from the outside. Glass, reinvented. You can access it from Bulgaria though! Flying cars? Still working on the self-driving part. We don't live longer, and life is no easier. The promises of Big Tech are underwhelming.

zbrozek 3y ago
I'm a hardware engineer, so my point of view is biased a bit towards atoms and what they can do for me: Cell data networks and Starlink are pretty awesome. Mostly-good connectivity just about anywhere is a huge advance. wifi is great. The ubiquity of brushless motors, controllers, and (for some applications) batteries means that my fridge, HVAC, and power tools are loads better than they used to be. More software-y: Remote meeting software means I rarely go on business trips any more, which is nice because flying is way worse than it used to be. Google Maps / Apple Maps / OSM have made it dramatically easier to get around, especially unfamiliar places. After two or three decades of nonsense, I finally have a decent no-frills printer driver that works.
riffraff 3y ago
I'm pretty sure washing machines are far more energy efficient now than in the 70s.
samtho 3y ago
> Flying cars? We have flying cars, Cessna makes them. We’ve had them since them 1950’s. I feel like there is room for innovation in the general aviation space but the FAA has very draconian and discriminatory rules for who can fly even as a private pilot. My point here is that innovation in tech is dependent on how well they can squeeze it into the current regulatory scene in addition to find market fit, and produce a viable product.
- mwint 3y ago
  I’m a current student pilot in FAA-land, soon to be a private pilot. I actually really don’t think the training requirements are very draconian. 40 hours, a few maneuvers, some knowledge about some stuff. Less than driving in some states. The DPE system is mildly corrupt, but that could be fixed by just adding a bunch more of them. What is driving prices up (and normal people out of flying Cessna-cars) is certification and maintenance requirements. You can’t change the sunshade in your Cessna without an STC. It’s nearly impossible to certify a new engine for a plane, so all those 172’s are using engines designed in the 60s. There was a story posted here a while back about a company who figured out automotive-marine engines work just fine for GA. Much better, even - more power, plenty reliable, better fuel economy. And the FAA just wouldn’t let them certify it. As in, they had investors who would pay certification costs and the FAA just wouldn’t tell them how, other than that everything they tried was wrong. We’re talking “you can’t put an experimental engine in a certified airplane, but certification of an engine must be done in a certified airplane” levels of bureaucracy. If you want GA to get more accessible, focus on making engine certification possible and a generally more accessible R&D cert process.
  - api 3y ago
    One take I’ve heard on the certification mess is that the FAA wants small plane aviation to stay small and niche and maybe even die off for any purpose other than training pilots for commercial. Basically the argument is that the FAA sees it as a hassle and a cost center and really only cares about commercial and government aviation.
    - 3y ago

zbrozek 3y ago

I'm a hardware engineer, so my point of view is biased a bit towards atoms and what they can do for me: Cell data networks and Starlink are pretty awesome. Mostly-good connectivity just about anywhere is a huge advance. wifi is great. The ubiquity of brushless motors, controllers, and (for some applications) batteries means that my fridge, HVAC, and power tools are loads better than they used to be. More software-y: Remote meeting software means I rarely go on business trips any more, which is nice because flying is way worse than it used to be. Google Maps / Apple Maps / OSM have made it dramatically easier to get around, especially unfamiliar places. After two or three decades of nonsense, I finally have a decent no-frills printer driver that works.

riffraff 3y ago

I'm pretty sure washing machines are far more energy efficient now than in the 70s.

samtho 3y ago

> Flying cars? We have flying cars, Cessna makes them. We’ve had them since them 1950’s. I feel like there is room for innovation in the general aviation space but the FAA has very draconian and discriminatory rules for who can fly even as a private pilot. My point here is that innovation in tech is dependent on how well they can squeeze it into the current regulatory scene in addition to find market fit, and produce a viable product.

mwint 3y ago
I’m a current student pilot in FAA-land, soon to be a private pilot. I actually really don’t think the training requirements are very draconian. 40 hours, a few maneuvers, some knowledge about some stuff. Less than driving in some states. The DPE system is mildly corrupt, but that could be fixed by just adding a bunch more of them. What is driving prices up (and normal people out of flying Cessna-cars) is certification and maintenance requirements. You can’t change the sunshade in your Cessna without an STC. It’s nearly impossible to certify a new engine for a plane, so all those 172’s are using engines designed in the 60s. There was a story posted here a while back about a company who figured out automotive-marine engines work just fine for GA. Much better, even - more power, plenty reliable, better fuel economy. And the FAA just wouldn’t let them certify it. As in, they had investors who would pay certification costs and the FAA just wouldn’t tell them how, other than that everything they tried was wrong. We’re talking “you can’t put an experimental engine in a certified airplane, but certification of an engine must be done in a certified airplane” levels of bureaucracy. If you want GA to get more accessible, focus on making engine certification possible and a generally more accessible R&D cert process.
- api 3y ago
  One take I’ve heard on the certification mess is that the FAA wants small plane aviation to stay small and niche and maybe even die off for any purpose other than training pilots for commercial. Basically the argument is that the FAA sees it as a hassle and a cost center and really only cares about commercial and government aviation.
  - 3y ago