Jump to content

"What emerging technology do you believe will have the greatest impact on our daily lives in the next 5-10 years?"

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

huh? why not? I do it just fine. I could have fit more into my basket too, or have also worn a backpack. This is in Huntsville, Alabama, USA

 

DSC_2035.thumb.JPG.b0899e4b69a2cd2f4fc6000da673fc2d.JPG

Sure it works for small stuff. But add someting as simple as a beverage crate and you're probably going to have a problem. I don't know how often they're used in the US, but here in Germany they're part of the weekly grocery shopping for most people. You're not going to fit that thing in a basket or a backpack.

Mehrwegpfandflaschen in Pfandkiste — Extremnews — Die etwas anderen ...

 

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

Most people live in cities or towns, so thats irrelevant. Like saying smartphones weren't a revelation since some people in rural areas have no cell service.

That heavily depends on where you're looking at. In Germany for example about 25% of the population lives in rural areas. Sure, that's the minority, but still a huge part that can't be ignored. Saying 25% are irrelevant is a bit of a reach don't you think?

 

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

No one is saying it will work literally everywhere on earth. I literally don't get this logic. Do you think smartphones are a failure since they don't work everywhere? "not everywhere has electricity or cell service!"

I didn't say everywhere on earth. I said outside of cities, which is a huge part of the world.

 

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

Especially when you have to drive on the main road? Tell me, why is that? Is it because of....... cars? if cars are killing people left and right, then it ain't the bikes that are dangerous.

I didn't mean bikes are a danger source. I meant that riding a bike is more dangerous to the driver than driving a car. You get overlooked more easily and if you do get hit, there's nothing between you and the car that hit you.

If someone did not use reason to reach their conclusion in the first place, you cannot use reason to convince them otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Sure it works for small stuff. But add someting as simple as a beverage crate and you're probably going to have a problem. I don't know how often they're used in the US, but here in Germany they're part of the weekly grocery shopping for most people. You're not going to fit that thing in a basket or a backpack.

you can add a rear bike rack if you need the extra space for heavy stuff like that
71xMf4So-IL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpgF4NQVXHK8J0I87K.jpg

 

59 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Sure, that's the minority, but still a huge part that can't be ignored.

Sure they can. If they won't benefit from the electric bike revolution, then they can be ignored and the people who will benefit can be given the advanced tech. Rural people shouldn't be gate keepers of revolutionary tech.

59 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

I didn't mean bikes are a danger source. I meant that riding a bike is more dangerous to the driver than driving a car. You get overlooked more easily and if you do get hit, there's nothing between you and the car that hit you.

That means cars are dangerous, not bikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from AI, which I think some people are overstating the unemployment consequences of...

 

I do think VR/AR within 10 years will either have its killer app/game OR killer hardware - whether console, standalone, or maybe even PC based.  I think either tech, hardware, and/or dev advancements will facilitate that.

I know some of you are thinking "but FB and Disney are abandoning metaverse R&D!". That's just a simple admission that they couldnt create a Minecraft-type killer game (which IMO is the OG metaverse game before MV was a buzzword).

 

VR has the potential to win over the equivalent of a console generation, if it can just do these things like the Nintendo Wii did:

  • There is a major local multiplayer draw (none yet) OR online multiplayer draw
  • Don't have a high price point compared to other current consoles & other VR hardware
  • Have intuitive controls for most people to easily pickup & play
  • It largely just works with few to no stability or setup challenges

I think theres some parallels in terms of innovation, especially given that both VR and Wii have motion controls.

 

BTW, on a separate note of what wont make the cut 10 years - Projections don't support Quantum Computing becoming a thing for at least 20 years, since we currently need a giant amount of quarks to make it quantum viable - See Veritasium's latest YouTube video on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, NobleGamer said:

like the Nintendo Wii did:

thaaaaaaaaaat seems like a comparison you don't want to make for the argument that VR has a bright future. The Wii, while hugely successful, was entirely a gimmick that has faded away. Sure, VR uses motion controls, but no one uses motion controls outside of VR.

But, well, I do agree that the wii and VR are very similar, but its because of that that I think VR doesn't have a future. The wii was fun, and so is VR, but its just a gimmick with little lasting appeal. I owned and sold both my wii and VR headset after a few years of owning them. Similar to 3D games and movies too. the 3DS was successful, but largely a gimmick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

AI/machine learning

Applications... basically anything involving knowledge work
Lots of applications in robots and 'search problems' like bioinformatics

 

the spill over will affect things like biotech and pretty much anything highly repetitive will become low value. 

 

3900x | 32GB RAM | RTX 2080

1.5TB Optane P4800X | 2TB Micron 1100 SSD | 16TB NAS w/ 10Gbe
QN90A | Polk R200, ELAC OW4.2, PB12-NSD, SB1000, HD800
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

I think VR doesn't have a future

I'm not disputing how VR is falling short of the 4 things I listed, and the fact that many games feel like tech demos in terms of depth rather than games.

 

My point is that rate of innovation in 10 years doesn't make it improbable that one of the big console makers or even Meta could swoop in and make a killer VR app or hardware with 5 presumed doublings of performance if Moores laws holds.

 

You really think the leaps that PS VR (now #2) and Quest headsets have made and will make in 10 years won't amount to anything?

 

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

The Wii, while hugely successful, was entirely a gimmick that has faded away.

 

Gimmick is funny way to characterize dominating an entire console generation with 101 million in worldwide lifetime console sales, Nintendo motion controls selling through more than other camera based motion controls (PS move and Kinect), and inspiring Switch's motion controls. That's just straight sales numbers.

 

If that impact is what you consider a "gimmick", then okay I agree with you that VR will be hugely selling "gimmick" in 10 years that lives in some form beyond its first killer hardware/app iteration 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, NobleGamer said:

Gimmick is funny way to characterize dominating an entire console generation with 101 million in worldwide lifetime console sales, Nintendo motion controls selling through more than other camera based motion controls (PS move and Kinect), and inspiring Switch's motion controls. That's just straight sales numbers.

 

If that impact is what you consider a "gimmick", then okay I agree with you that VR will be hugely selling "gimmick" in 10 years that lives in some form beyond its first killer hardware/app iteration 😉

It only lasted for around 10 years. Compare that to the playstation and xbox controller. They have existed and had little changed for ~20 years now, with no sign of going away any time soon. Thats the difference I'm alluding to. A gimmick isn't something that doesn't sell a lot, its something that doesn't have a lasting impact.

VR is an interactive experience. Its great, but barriers are just too strong. Often when people games, they don't want to move around and go through the hassle of getting the big clunky headset out of the box and putting it on. They want to sit back and relax.
The main reason its a gimmick is because it doesn't do anything better than non-vr. Its a different experience, but is it a better experience? No. Maybe for very niche applications like car racing sim games, but thats only if you prefer the 1st person view and not 3rd person. Shooting and adventure VR games are fun, but are they better than keyboard/mouse or controller games? No, not really. Some games you can only really experience in VR, like beat saber, but that goes back to what I said about people wanting to game to relax, not to exercise or move around a bunch.

On a personal note, my biggest issues with my htc vive headset was that my glasses would fog up, and the devices often wouldn't pair correctly or some other software issue like audio not registering correctly. My glasses fogging up whenever I played was the worst issue for sure though. idk if other headsets had the problem too. I could launch rocket league in 30 seconds, or I could spend several minutes, or longer, getting the headset out of the box, pairing all the devices, hope the controllers are charged, move everything around in my room to create space to play.... anyways I just always chose the simpler option of launching rocket league or some other non-vr game instead since I didn't want to deal with the hassle of the headset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, The 8-Bit Time Traveller said:

How can we use the emerging technologies to address the rising unemployment issue?

 

Communism/socialism. The peak of human civilization (which is where we are) should not be 40 hour work weeks for every living being with a lofty few reaping 99% of profits. Technology has always been about giving humans more time for leisure, less time for work; making our work more efficient. Why should leisure time only be for the wealthy? If we can have AI/automation run and manage nearly every job, why not? People who love to cook food can still have restaurants, people who like to build things will still build things, and so on. But it won't have to be done to earn a number to give to someone to survive, it will be done because people want to. The only thing holding that back is, well one, the fear of AI gaining sentience and deleting humans because we are hindering the system, but also there isn't a profit motive nor economic motive to do so.

 

The human basic needs (food, water, shelter, etc) should, and could be met for everyone on earth. We have the capacity for it now. There isn't a food shortage, it's a distribution problem. There isn't a housing shortage, it's a distribution problem. Why can't basic living standards be guaranteed to every person on the planet? The biggest 'technological' shift is understanding the one thing holding humanity back is the idea of profit. Profit incentive is the only reason companies do anything. Get past that point, and understand that we all can live a crazy future where we can pretty much do whatever we want, whenever we want, if we just share the resources we have and do so in the most ecologically sustainable way, that's the biggest impact.

 

We saw what happened when billions of people didn't work during COVID (yes, a lot of people were still working their normal jobs, myself included, but just go with it) people found new hobbies, had time to garden, time to create, time to do whatever it is they wanted to do. Who cares if someone just sat on the couch and binge watched every Sopranos season, did they hurt you? No? Well then, no harm, no foul. The idea that 'work = worthiness' in society is the 'technological breakthrough' that will change the world.

 

4 hours ago, NobleGamer said:

That's just a simple admission that they couldnt create a Minecraft-type killer game (which IMO is the OG metaverse game before MV was a buzzword).

 

The OG metaverse to me is Second Life...but I'm old soooo, yeah. We were talking about virtual marketplaces, economies, even 'virtual real estate' and communities in 2004-8 college anthropology classes. Apparently there was a documentary in 2010 about Second Life (Life 2.0), but we had watched a slightly older documentary in one of my classes, I wish I could find what it was called though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Omon_Ra said:

 

Communism/socialism. The peak of human civilization (which is where we are) should not be 40 hour work weeks for every living being with a lofty few reaping 99% of profits. Technology has always been about giving humans more time for leisure, less time for work; making our work more efficient. Why should leisure time only be for the wealthy? If we can have AI/automation run and manage nearly every job, why not? People who love to cook food can still have restaurants, people who like to build things will still build things, and so on. But it won't have to be done to earn a number to give to someone to survive, it will be done because people want to. The only thing holding that back is, well one, the fear of AI gaining sentience and deleting humans because we are hindering the system, but also there isn't a profit motive nor economic motive to do so.

 

The human basic needs (food, water, shelter, etc) should, and could be met for everyone on earth. We have the capacity for it now. There isn't a food shortage, it's a distribution problem. There isn't a housing shortage, it's a distribution problem. Why can't basic living standards be guaranteed to every person on the planet? The biggest 'technological' shift is understanding the one thing holding humanity back is the idea of profit. Profit incentive is the only reason companies do anything. Get past that point, and understand that we all can live a crazy future where we can pretty much do whatever we want, whenever we want, if we just share the resources we have and do so in the most ecologically sustainable way, that's the biggest impact.

 

We saw what happened when billions of people didn't work during COVID (yes, a lot of people were still working their normal jobs, myself included, but just go with it) people found new hobbies, had time to garden, time to create, time to do whatever it is they wanted to do. Who cares if someone just sat on the couch and binge watched every Sopranos season, did they hurt you? No? Well then, no harm, no foul. The idea that 'work = worthiness' in society is the 'technological breakthrough' that will change the world.

 

 

The OG metaverse to me is Second Life...but I'm old soooo, yeah. We were talking about virtual marketplaces, economies, even 'virtual real estate' and communities in 2004-8 college anthropology classes. Apparently there was a documentary in 2010 about Second Life (Life 2.0), but we had watched a slightly older documentary in one of my classes, I wish I could find what it was called though.

This is such a nice positive hopeful outlook, unfortunately human nature is not in line with meaningful leisure time. Most people derive meaning from conflict. We evolved to thrive on conflicting with nature for our basic survival, after nature, we had conflict with other tribes for resources. In a world where we have no natural conflict, we fabricate artificial conflicts in order to meet our natural need for a fight to fight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Omon_Ra said:

The OG metaverse to me is Second Life...but I'm old soooo, yeah. We were talking about virtual marketplaces, economies, even 'virtual real estate'

I agree that SL was functionally more of a metaverse - I mentioned Minecraft because that is the level of popularity that companies like Meta wanted from an MV, and Minecraft has some albeit less MV features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NobleGamer said:

I agree that SL was functionally more of a metaverse - I mentioned Minecraft because that is the level of popularity that companies like Meta wanted from an MV, and Minecraft has some albeit less MV features.

There's a mod for that 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Omon_Ra said:

 

Communism/socialism. The peak of human civilization (which is where we are) should not be 40 hour work weeks for every living being with a lofty few reaping 99% of profits. Technology has always been about giving humans more time for leisure, less time for work; making our work more efficient. Why should leisure time only be for the wealthy? If we can have AI/automation run and manage nearly every job, why not? People who love to cook food can still have restaurants, people who like to build things will still build things, and so on. But it won't have to be done to earn a number to give to someone to survive, it will be done because people want to. The only thing holding that back is, well one, the fear of AI gaining sentience and deleting humans because we are hindering the system, but also there isn't a profit motive nor economic motive to do so.

 

The human basic needs (food, water, shelter, etc) should, and could be met for everyone on earth. We have the capacity for it now. There isn't a food shortage, it's a distribution problem. There isn't a housing shortage, it's a distribution problem. Why can't basic living standards be guaranteed to every person on the planet? The biggest 'technological' shift is understanding the one thing holding humanity back is the idea of profit. Profit incentive is the only reason companies do anything. Get past that point, and understand that we all can live a crazy future where we can pretty much do whatever we want, whenever we want, if we just share the resources we have and do so in the most ecologically sustainable way, that's the biggest impact.

 

We saw what happened when billions of people didn't work during COVID (yes, a lot of people were still working their normal jobs, myself included, but just go with it) people found new hobbies, had time to garden, time to create, time to do whatever it is they wanted to do. Who cares if someone just sat on the couch and binge watched every Sopranos season, did they hurt you? No? Well then, no harm, no foul. The idea that 'work = worthiness' in society is the 'technological breakthrough' that will change the world.

 

 

The OG metaverse to me is Second Life...but I'm old soooo, yeah. We were talking about virtual marketplaces, economies, even 'virtual real estate' and communities in 2004-8 college anthropology classes. Apparently there was a documentary in 2010 about Second Life (Life 2.0), but we had watched a slightly older documentary in one of my classes, I wish I could find what it was called though.

 

9 hours ago, The 8-Bit Time Traveller said:

This is such a nice positive hopeful outlook, unfortunately human nature is not in line with meaningful leisure time. Most people derive meaning from conflict. We evolved to thrive on conflicting with nature for our basic survival, after nature, we had conflict with other tribes for resources. In a world where we have no natural conflict, we fabricate artificial conflicts in order to meet our natural need for a fight to fight

I think a hybrid of socialism and capitalism (social-capitalism?), along with a bunch of changes to certain systems is what's needed.

 

I was gonna rant a bit but it would have been way off-topic, so here's a link discussing the fusion reaction I mentioned earlier, for those that want to check it out.

 

https://www.llnl.gov/news/star-power-blazing-path-fusion-ignition

 

A lot of the technical crap is above my knowledge/expertise, but it seems like a positive step forward in the energy scene.

Parasoshill

adjective

  • A person whose parasocial relationship with a social media influencer or content creator has driven them to promote or blindly defend them, acting as a shill for their benefit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without a doubt - AI. Not necessarily a positive impact, but impact nonetheless. I think it's fa more likely we end up in a war against AI in the next 10 years, than any major quality of life change like let's say curing cancer or developing advanced implants and body augmentations.  

| Ryzen 7 5800X3D | Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 Rev 7| AsRock X570 Steel Legend |

| 4x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo 4000MHz CL16 | Sapphire Nitro+ RX 6900 XT | Seasonic Focus GX-1000|

| 512GB A-Data XPG Spectrix S40G RGB | 2TB A-Data SX8200 Pro| Phanteks Eclipse G500A |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, The 8-Bit Time Traveller said:

This is such a nice positive hopeful outlook, unfortunately human nature is not in line with meaningful leisure time. Most people derive meaning from conflict. We evolved to thrive on conflicting with nature for our basic survival, after nature, we had conflict with other tribes for resources. In a world where we have no natural conflict, we fabricate artificial conflicts in order to meet our natural need for a fight to fight

I think this gets into the 'are humans innately evil or innately good' philosophical conundrum. On one hand, nearly all indigenous peoples found ways to coexist with nature, not 'fight' it; yet there was still conflict between tribes and groups because, reasons? It wasn't always resource driven, as at that point resources were still typically plentiful and populations/technology was not exacerbating resource extraction; but power driven, the compulsion to hold control/power over someone else, to enslave/subjugate others rather than to work collectively.

 

4 hours ago, WildDagwood said:

 

I think a hybrid of socialism and capitalism (social-capitalism?), along with a bunch of changes to certain systems is what's needed.

 

I was gonna rant a bit but it would have been way off-topic, so here's a link discussing the fusion reaction I mentioned earlier, for those that want to check it out.

 

https://www.llnl.gov/news/star-power-blazing-path-fusion-ignition

 

A lot of the technical crap is above my knowledge/expertise, but it seems like a positive step forward in the energy scene.

I've had many internal and external conversations on the idea of a socially/environmentally driven capitalist system; if instead of profits as primary motive, what if sustainability (environmental, business, and worker) were the primary motive..what would that look like? And it just ends up being socialism/communism.

 

I am very hopeful for fusion technology, but even to that end, I think fission nuclear is far under-utilized. We have nuclear powered aircraft carriers that are essentially a floating city with a generator roughly the size of a refrigerator, that will never need to be refueled. Have a couple of those per city/large population center, and power outages are history. I think a part of the problem with electrical infrastructure is the idea that it should be centralized and distributed over long distances by wires like we have been doing for well over a century. IMO, the solution is decentralized infrastructure. Smaller grids of neighborhoods, towns, counties, etc. that have multiple means of energy production (wind, solar, nuclear, and even coal/oil/gas for extreme emergency situations). Hydroelectric dams need to be destroyed though, they are probably one of the most environmentally destructive means of electricity production ever. Yeah, fossil fuels create greenhouse gases and all, but damming a river immediately, and long term, borks an entire estuarian ecology for thousands of miles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Omon_Ra said:

I think this gets into the 'are humans innately evil or innately good' philosophical conundrum. On one hand, nearly all indigenous peoples found ways to coexist with nature, not 'fight' it; yet there was still conflict between tribes and groups because, reasons? It wasn't always resource driven, as at that point resources were still typically plentiful and populations/technology was not exacerbating resource extraction; but power driven, the compulsion to hold control/power over someone else, to enslave/subjugate others rather than to work collectively.

 

I've had many internal and external conversations on the idea of a socially/environmentally driven capitalist system; if instead of profits as primary motive, what if sustainability (environmental, business, and worker) were the primary motive..what would that look like? And it just ends up being socialism/communism.

 

I am very hopeful for fusion technology, but even to that end, I think fission nuclear is far under-utilized. We have nuclear powered aircraft carriers that are essentially a floating city with a generator roughly the size of a refrigerator, that will never need to be refueled. Have a couple of those per city/large population center, and power outages are history. I think a part of the problem with electrical infrastructure is the idea that it should be centralized and distributed over long distances by wires like we have been doing for well over a century. IMO, the solution is decentralized infrastructure. Smaller grids of neighborhoods, towns, counties, etc. that have multiple means of energy production (wind, solar, nuclear, and even coal/oil/gas for extreme emergency situations). Hydroelectric dams need to be destroyed though, they are probably one of the most environmentally destructive means of electricity production ever. Yeah, fossil fuels create greenhouse gases and all, but damming a river immediately, and long term, borks an entire estuarian ecology for thousands of miles.

Problem is you can't have a system where the equality of outcome is consistent but the equality of effort never will be, and you can't force people to either. Many (most?) people still need to be incentivized to strive for more and contribute something back to society. It just can't get to the point where it is now where the distribution of wealth and power is consolidated to a few, and they have the means to perpetuate (and add to) the systems which do it.

 

Maybe need to continue that discussion elsewhere though, this will derail quickly otherwise.

 

I'm sure there are a lot of logistical problems with changing things in regard to how energy is distributed, but it would take a long discussion to iron out the pros and cons, and whether it's worth it. I can see a few clear benefits to something similar to what you're suggesting, though.

Parasoshill

adjective

  • A person whose parasocial relationship with a social media influencer or content creator has driven them to promote or blindly defend them, acting as a shill for their benefit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×