[HN Gopher] Silicon Valley hasn't innovated since 1978
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Silicon Valley hasn't innovated since 1978
        
       Author : todsacerdoti
       Score  : 11 points
       Date   : 2021-01-28 19:46 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.lord-enki.net)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.lord-enki.net)
        
       | rektide wrote:
       | John Ohno is a treasure. Very few people out there with well
       | calibrated macroscopes like John.
       | 
       | There's some hand waving (a lot) here, but we've lived under 20
       | years of de-empowerment: simplifying consumerizing, cloudifying.
       | We used to try to make computing itself better. That innovation
       | has been quelled.
        
         | RGamma wrote:
         | And how sterile and boring computing culture has become... it's
         | really a shame how overpowering the business aspect is to CS
         | teaching and employment. We're losing something important...
        
       | Someone wrote:
       | Title of this HN post is correct in the sense that it's the title
       | of the referenced article, but that title is wrong for the
       | article's content.
       | 
       | The article claims computer science hasn't moved forward (much)
       | since 1978, claiming that the changes in the 40 years between
       | 1940 and 1980 were much larger than those between the next 40
       | years (1980 and 2020)
       | 
       | I think a simple model could explain that. Let's say computing
       | went from '1' to '41' in those first forty years, an improvement
       | of about a factor of 40. Keeping the same speed, it would have
       | gone from '41' to '81' in the second 40 years, an improvement of
       | about a factor of 2. That's an order of magnitude less than that
       | factor of 40.
       | 
       | You can change those numbers to get any difference you want.
       | Point is that, if progress is more or less linear and
       | improvements are measured as relative size differences,
       | improvement rate always will slow down over time.
       | 
       | Now, whether that model or something like it holds, I'm not sure
       | about, but I think it might hold for many new fields (what
       | happened after the invention of the alphabet, for example? A few
       | thousand new glyphs, emoji, etc. were added, but there's not much
       | really new there)
        
       | stephenr wrote:
       | What 1970s technology is the smartphone a mere "incremental
       | improvement" from?
        
         | rowanG077 wrote:
         | A smartphone is not different from any other computer. It's
         | simply smaller. Can't get more incremental then a reduction in
         | size.
        
           | krallja wrote:
           | It's simply smaller *
           | 
           | * also, an integrated touchscreen, inertial measurement
           | sensors, a half dozen wireless protocols, two to four
           | cameras, an array of microphones, speakers, LIDAR, OLED, a
           | rechargeable battery....
        
             | Aeronwen wrote:
             | All made possible by shrinking technology available in
             | 1978.
        
             | rowanG077 wrote:
             | > an integrated touchscreen
             | 
             | Invented in 1965 [1].
             | 
             | > inertial measurement sensor
             | 
             | Commercially available since 1949 [2].
             | 
             | > a half dozen wireless protocols
             | 
             | This doesn't mean anything. Wireless data transmission was
             | invented long before 1970.
             | 
             | > two to four cameras, an array of microphones, speakers,
             | LIDAR, OLED, a rechargeable battery
             | 
             | All of these can be done precisely because there has been a
             | reduction in size. None of this completely new tech. It's
             | incremental reduction in size.
             | 
             | [1] https://digital-
             | library.theiet.org/content/journals/10.1049/....
             | 
             | [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294669755_The_
             | histo...
        
             | jfengel wrote:
             | And costs five orders of magnitude less to do five orders
             | of magnitude more than in the 1970s.
        
         | jfengel wrote:
         | Why, it's nothing more than a waffle iron with a phone
         | attached.
         | 
         | [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0701148/characters/nm0810379
        
       | guidovranken wrote:
       | What a terribly dogmatic way of looking at things. Some things
       | don't change because they work fine, like core network protocols.
       | Other things have improved so dramatically that they're
       | indistinguishable from magic to anyone who lived a century ago
       | (real-time HD video conferencing, deep fakes, VR, speech
       | assistants like Siri), but according to the author these are
       | merely "incremental improvements".
       | 
       | Computing is _the_ area that has seen the most innovation since
       | the seventies. This is the point Peter Thiel often makes;
       | computing has gone through a Cambrian explosion while other
       | fields like medicine have been comparatively stagnant (cancer
       | still isn 't cured).
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-01-28 23:03 UTC)