3 ms·
When I say "a decade" that was meant as an example timespan. Depending on how complicated the processes turn out you could also look at "multiple decades" or in
by atoav 3y ago
When I say "a decade" that was meant as an example timespan. Depending on how complicated the processes turn out you could also look at "multiple decades" or in some cases also "never".
A problem with today's science world is that the funding is competitive to a degree scientists need to "sell" their findings with practical applications — the fact they expanded the edge of human knowledge has become worthless. So our systemically incentivized-to-sell scientists do just that. And sometimes it works out and sometimes it is just far fetched bs. But because the edge of current science is so precise, so small, so ho, so cold, so fast, so low energy, etc. translating even the best of finsings into commercially scalable processes has become a major undertaking and despite unprecedented wealth on the top of the society, the ones on top have become averse to risk.
- tjoff 3y agoI got that, but the question wasn't "where are the mind-blowing stuff we should have had by now", but rather - what are the most significant uses we've found? In my mind also implying that we might have long ways to go for the full potential. Perfectly reasonable question, especially considering past projections.