4 ms·

Ok, this is a real low for HN. Are you actually saying that the only thing computing has done for the world is better porn delivery and better commerce? Wow. Do

Ok, this is a real low for HN. Are you actually saying that the only thing computing has done for the world is better porn delivery and better commerce? Wow. Do you have any idea how we managed to decode our genome so fast? Any idea that every science labs including maths have computers to test their hypothesis and solve their equations at such a huge scale and speed no human being could possibly dream to match? How about communication? How about almost anything you use today to make your life easier has a computer chip in it? How about making the bulk of human knowledge available to anyone with an internet connection even in remote poor areas of the world where adults can barely read such as Peru where I lived for years? I could go on but I think you get the idea.

coldtea 14y ago
>Ok, this is a real low for HN. Are you actually saying that the only thing computing has done for the world is better porn delivery and better commerce? Wow. Do you have any idea how we managed to decode our genome so fast? Any idea that every science labs including maths have computers to test their hypothesis and solve their equations at such a huge scale and speed no human being could possibly dream to match? How about communication? How about almost anything you use today to make your life easier has a computer chip in it? Making my life slightly easier is not that important -- and hardly what I'd call a world changing event in the scale of agricultural revolution or even the industrial revolution. I understand that as CS people we like to sing our own praises, but just like once you have electric ovens, getting a microwave is not that big of progress (if it's not a throwback to a worse method of heating), similarly, once you have global trade routes, ships, trains, cars, snail mail, telegraphs and telephones, having computerised version of communication is not that much of a step forward. The world is not that different, including everyday life, from 40 years ago, when computers were mostly unknown outside of large companies. We just play more videogames, watch more cat videos, and exchange more (than zero) BS instant messages and mails. Quantitative is not qualitative difference. As for the use of computers in science: again, quantitative is not qualitative difference. The most involved and mind-boggling discoveries were done before computers, from evolution, to relativity, to quantum mechanics, to the DNA. We are now better at number crunching (such as decoding the genome), that doesn't mean we produce science of equal impact.
- patrickaljord 14y ago
  You left out making knowledge available to all. > that doesn't mean we produce science of equal impact Of course we do, we make amazing science at such a huge rate most people can't even keep up with it anymore. If you believe computing has only little and only "quantitative" impact on science and communication than there is little I can do for you, computing has completely revolutionized every single science field. But sure, keep thinking it's just cat videos and porn. Maybe we should just go farming instead...
  - coldtea 14y ago
    >Of course we do, we make amazing science at such a huge rate most people can't even keep up with it anymore. If you believe computing has only little and only "quantitative" impact on science and communication than there is little I can do for you, computing has completely revolutionized every single science field. But sure, keep thinking it's just cat videos and porn. Maybe we should just go farming instead... The condescending tone is because you believe you are talking to some child or something? People have differing opinions, and what you believe as the "objective truth" is not some kind of gospel. As a matter of fact, the very issue of current science having much less impact nowadays has been stated before on HN, with very valid explanations and analysis behind it. One reason, for example, is that the more important stuff in most scientific fields are the lower hanging fruits, and early scientists got most of them. It's a case of diminishing returns. Say whatever you want, but any current discovery is not of the caliber of Maxwell's equations, the discovery of DNA or evolution, Einstein's theory of relatively, et al. It's marginal, incremental work, not evolutionary. And people "can't even keep up with it anymore" just because it's so vast and concerns minutiae, not because it's so groundbreaking. Here are some further elaborations on that: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2011/07/26/what-happens-if-science-becomes-a-low-yield-activity/ http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2011/07/26/what-happens-i... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18095669 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18095669 http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569381-idea-innovation-and-new-technology-have-stopped-driving-growth-getting-increasing http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569381-idea-innovat...
- VexXtreme 14y ago

coldtea 14y ago

>Ok, this is a real low for HN. Are you actually saying that the only thing computing has done for the world is better porn delivery and better commerce? Wow. Do you have any idea how we managed to decode our genome so fast? Any idea that every science labs including maths have computers to test their hypothesis and solve their equations at such a huge scale and speed no human being could possibly dream to match? How about communication? How about almost anything you use today to make your life easier has a computer chip in it? Making my life slightly easier is not that important -- and hardly what I'd call a world changing event in the scale of agricultural revolution or even the industrial revolution. I understand that as CS people we like to sing our own praises, but just like once you have electric ovens, getting a microwave is not that big of progress (if it's not a throwback to a worse method of heating), similarly, once you have global trade routes, ships, trains, cars, snail mail, telegraphs and telephones, having computerised version of communication is not that much of a step forward. The world is not that different, including everyday life, from 40 years ago, when computers were mostly unknown outside of large companies. We just play more videogames, watch more cat videos, and exchange more (than zero) BS instant messages and mails. Quantitative is not qualitative difference. As for the use of computers in science: again, quantitative is not qualitative difference. The most involved and mind-boggling discoveries were done before computers, from evolution, to relativity, to quantum mechanics, to the DNA. We are now better at number crunching (such as decoding the genome), that doesn't mean we produce science of equal impact.

patrickaljord 14y ago
You left out making knowledge available to all. > that doesn't mean we produce science of equal impact Of course we do, we make amazing science at such a huge rate most people can't even keep up with it anymore. If you believe computing has only little and only "quantitative" impact on science and communication than there is little I can do for you, computing has completely revolutionized every single science field. But sure, keep thinking it's just cat videos and porn. Maybe we should just go farming instead...
- coldtea 14y ago
  >Of course we do, we make amazing science at such a huge rate most people can't even keep up with it anymore. If you believe computing has only little and only "quantitative" impact on science and communication than there is little I can do for you, computing has completely revolutionized every single science field. But sure, keep thinking it's just cat videos and porn. Maybe we should just go farming instead... The condescending tone is because you believe you are talking to some child or something? People have differing opinions, and what you believe as the "objective truth" is not some kind of gospel. As a matter of fact, the very issue of current science having much less impact nowadays has been stated before on HN, with very valid explanations and analysis behind it. One reason, for example, is that the more important stuff in most scientific fields are the lower hanging fruits, and early scientists got most of them. It's a case of diminishing returns. Say whatever you want, but any current discovery is not of the caliber of Maxwell's equations, the discovery of DNA or evolution, Einstein's theory of relatively, et al. It's marginal, incremental work, not evolutionary. And people "can't even keep up with it anymore" just because it's so vast and concerns minutiae, not because it's so groundbreaking. Here are some further elaborations on that: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2011/07/26/what-happens-if-science-becomes-a-low-yield-activity/ http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2011/07/26/what-happens-i... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18095669 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18095669 http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569381-idea-innovation-and-new-technology-have-stopped-driving-growth-getting-increasing http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569381-idea-innovat...
VexXtreme 14y ago