3 ms·
The 1990->2000 change seemed more impressive than 2000->2010 because we'd come to expect rapid change after the '90s. So nothing that has happened in the past 1
by pwnstigator 17y ago
The 1990->2000 change seemed more impressive than 2000->2010 because we'd come to expect rapid change after the '90s. So nothing that has happened in the past 10 years was especially surprising in the way the Internet would be from a 1986 perspective. (When I first learned about the internet, as a 6-year-old in '89, I never thought I'd actually be able to use it until college, which seemed ridiculously far away.)
I think we're accelerating on a linear graph, but decelerating on a log graph, due to a lack of investment in science and technology compared to previous eras, and also due to the social and economic catastrophes that were seeded in the '80s and came to roost in this decade.
The 2000s was a "weak" decade, but still not a bad one, all considered. This is similar the 1930s were better than most of the 19th century, but seem awful by comparison to now (or even the '50s). Technological progress has finally reached a point where even society's "bad" decades (e.g. 2000s) are good.