Post B4vKwaW4QLMAkMqv6e by iron_bug@friendica.ironbug.org
 (DIR) More posts by iron_bug@friendica.ironbug.org
 (DIR) Post #B4vABwgFCYkAKrjQe0 by iron_bug@friendica.ironbug.org
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @loriemerson I disagree only with °cheaper° clause. because if something is better and higher in tehnology, it just cannot be cheaper. and cheaper are usually poor quality things or things made by slaves that are underpaid. but I would add a clause of longevity: a new instrument should run and work fine longer than previous one.
       
 (DIR) Post #B4vABwwCFFVJ8LCAVc by lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       remember moore's law?  it had us all used to expecting cheaper tech as time went by, or far more powerful tech costing the same.  that's the expectation encoded there, I believe.CC: @loriemerson@post.lurk.org
       
 (DIR) Post #B4vKwaW4QLMAkMqv6e by iron_bug@friendica.ironbug.org
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @loriemerson @lxo it is not actual for many years already. the era of possible cheap development bsed on existing tehnologies is over and further envolvement takes serious scientific research and engineering efforts and investments.that's why we don't see any improvements in hardware the past decades. they just faced the limits that are not passable with already exising solutions.
       
 (DIR) Post #B4vKwaiTgDHVMqepRg by lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       that may be true, but realize you're arguing with something written in 1987, and what you dispute doesn't relate with what's written there.  it's not about how expensive it is to develop and evolve something, but how tech tends to become cheaper over time, as new tech displaces old oneCC: @iron_bug@friendica.ironbug.org @loriemerson@post.lurk.org