3 ms·

The internet? it really only took off late 90s early 00s. Also I like how you discount a major change as if one pivot isn't good enough. Remember changes used

The internet? it really only took off late 90s early 00s. Also I like how you discount a major change as if one pivot isn't good enough. Remember changes used to only happen every 100 years or so a while back and going back even further it was longer.

olivier1664 14y ago
The 19th and 20th centuries has seen a lot of improvements. It's clear that thing continue to improve in a lot of domains, but it is not clear that it accelerates. IMO 1995-2005 has major impacts compared to 2005-2013.
- pkorzeniewski 14y ago
  In my opinion nothing can beat the beginning of 20th century. Cars, airplanes, phones, television, radio - all that originated (or have been widely adapted) one hundred years ago. Internet and smartphones are inventions from the last 20 years, before that I can't think about any inventions that drastically changed our every day life.
  - JonnieCache 14y ago
    Don't forget quantum mechanics, relativity and the discovery of the expanding universe, also all around that time. The last one wasn't really an innovation to be fair.
drewcoo 14y ago
Well, no. The article does not mention the Internet. It talks about the web. The article is very well-meant and sincere. It is also vapid, vague, and shows no actual direction for a possible future. And it blames "technology" for the current disparity of wealth. Welcome to HN. This kind of crap is posted too often imho.
- brc 14y ago
  I'll agree that the article is of very poor quality. FTA: "Maybe we need to grant more university degrees. Maybe we need more PhDs. Maybe we need more government workers. Maybe we need more subsidies. Because, you know, 40-hour jobs is what we had so it must be what we will have. But nobody, it seems, can conceive a world where most of us work far less for money than we do now. " What on earth is he talking about? It's hard to say whether he thinks more people at university is right or wrong - but 'conceiving of a world where most of us work far less for money' - a very naive understanding of what work and money is. The key to working less is more productivity. But a funny thing happens when productivity increases. Instead of people accepting the same standard of living and working fewer hours, most people will opt for working the same amount of hours and increase their standard of living. Many blurry-thinkers see this as some type of evil that must be stopped, when in reality it is the concious choice that many people make. It's not right or wrong, it just is.
- marcofloriano 14y ago
  Impressive how fast HN is going down lately. It´s not a novel nor an article from New York Times. It´s the feeling of a guy who sees the crap imagination we got today. And we are so badly narrow minded that we cant even point solutions to the problem he brought on the post. What´s your solution mate ? And i don't see craps like this regularly here. What i see every day here are people trying to look nice, but actually with any real imagination.

olivier1664 14y ago

The 19th and 20th centuries has seen a lot of improvements. It's clear that thing continue to improve in a lot of domains, but it is not clear that it accelerates. IMO 1995-2005 has major impacts compared to 2005-2013.

pkorzeniewski 14y ago
In my opinion nothing can beat the beginning of 20th century. Cars, airplanes, phones, television, radio - all that originated (or have been widely adapted) one hundred years ago. Internet and smartphones are inventions from the last 20 years, before that I can't think about any inventions that drastically changed our every day life.
- JonnieCache 14y ago
  Don't forget quantum mechanics, relativity and the discovery of the expanding universe, also all around that time. The last one wasn't really an innovation to be fair.

drewcoo 14y ago

Well, no. The article does not mention the Internet. It talks about the web. The article is very well-meant and sincere. It is also vapid, vague, and shows no actual direction for a possible future. And it blames "technology" for the current disparity of wealth. Welcome to HN. This kind of crap is posted too often imho.

brc 14y ago
I'll agree that the article is of very poor quality. FTA: "Maybe we need to grant more university degrees. Maybe we need more PhDs. Maybe we need more government workers. Maybe we need more subsidies. Because, you know, 40-hour jobs is what we had so it must be what we will have. But nobody, it seems, can conceive a world where most of us work far less for money than we do now. " What on earth is he talking about? It's hard to say whether he thinks more people at university is right or wrong - but 'conceiving of a world where most of us work far less for money' - a very naive understanding of what work and money is. The key to working less is more productivity. But a funny thing happens when productivity increases. Instead of people accepting the same standard of living and working fewer hours, most people will opt for working the same amount of hours and increase their standard of living. Many blurry-thinkers see this as some type of evil that must be stopped, when in reality it is the concious choice that many people make. It's not right or wrong, it just is.
marcofloriano 14y ago
Impressive how fast HN is going down lately. It´s not a novel nor an article from New York Times. It´s the feeling of a guy who sees the crap imagination we got today. And we are so badly narrow minded that we cant even point solutions to the problem he brought on the post. What´s your solution mate ? And i don't see craps like this regularly here. What i see every day here are people trying to look nice, but actually with any real imagination.