Has any of you listen to Peter Thiel recently? I agree with him on "we are not really doing innovation" but iterations of the same technologies' for last 20 years in IT.

For example: We had websites 25 years before-todays most popular website looks like simplified 2005 websites, we can't still get rid of password tech reliably, embedded systems just got smaller and faster, no breakthrough. IoT is just rebranding with more energy efficiency and smaller size. We have marginally better IDEs or tools in general. ML/AI just enjoys the flavour of the decade, cheaper processing power, their concepts are old as hell...

Kevlin Henney said this at least 4 years ago. Old is the new new. Microservices? Linux applications do one thing, and do it well. Lambda? Algol68 (number is year) had that. Smartphones were pretty revolutionary, but they haven't changed much in 10 years.

https://youtu.be/AbgsfeGvg3E

You can't always innovate. Tech progress is in two distinct phases: revolutionary and evolutionary.

You can't always have the former because that would mean to continuously trash what you have, and that wouldn't work because nobody would invest anything anymore.

I mean, my current PC is faster in every way than my previous one from 2010, needs a fraction of the energy, and also cost only a fraction.

@Fast-Nop My point is exactly that. We are having the same shit for cheaper and more efficient. We are able to run more Chrome tabs at the same time or build projects faster, or play games with better graphics with more FPS. So boring.

And innovation does not mean trashing all older ones. Space flights did not trash anything but built on earlier research and made a breakthrough. But if the old must be trashed, so be it. But instead, we are still having 80 column limit in the year of 4k/8k monitors. Our newest programming languages are hardly innovations but safer versions of C programming language. It feels like we are stuck.

@aviophile Well, that's a case of diminishing returns then. There's only so much you can actually do with certain tech, and actually even with the underlying science. That's because the low-hanging fruit get harvested first.

Though there are actually changes. Are you old enough to remember video rental shops? I do, and also their change to DVDs, and then even as fully automated 24/7 ATM style shops. All gone because of streaming.

Or sometimes, it takes non-tech factors. We could have done a lot WFH already 10 years ago, but we didn't until the Corona lockdowns forced managers to choose between WFH or no work at all. Now that the genie is out of the bottle, companies with backwards management will pay dearly for useless and expensive office space, putting these companies at a competitive disadvantage.

todo list 20.0 web 5.0

@aviophile It's hard to judge what is innovative.

Ebay and PayPal weren't mega revolutionary unheard of concepts, there were failed efforts before.

The next innovation is probably something we all know of that's been done - but not that well.

And to some extent I think "evolution is what happens while you were busy living your life". People might say "new iPhone isn't that different to the first" but the world still went from a place where no one could access their bank on a mobile app to where nearly everyone does.

@jiraTicket my definition in innovation is more strict like Space Flights, first Jet Engines, first ARPANET then it becoming Internet for the masses. Maybe the first smartphone was the innovation but once you have access to the internet from your handheld device, mobile banking for masses is not innovation for me, it is just Banks not developing apps for smart phones for too long. They are all iterations and combinations of the things they already exist.

Some ideas take long until they are adapted:

e.g. I/O:

input through hand/finger gestures in three-dimensional space is a thing I see in youtube videos from time to time, and there are first products too, but it is not adapted yet.

Output:

virtual reality and augumented reality is another possible vector for revolution: instead of the need of bigger TV's or screens this could be virtualized.

Existent revolutions are all the "cryptocurrencies" (e.g. Bitcoin, Montero, etc.) that really changed the world.

I believe it was 2% of the WORLDS electricity use that is spend on mining (!)

And wait for quanten computation; this might need a decade before it really arrives, but there are so many things in development :)

I think innovation is happening.

The next steps in innovation will take a while though.

The smartphone has plateaued. It's like a bicycle: Sure, you can design a foldable one, but other than that, we understand the ideal form factor pretty well. It's done.

But:

1. Robotics is advancing quickly. Not just in terms of "bipeds and drones". I worked in a lab synthesizing chemicals — that lab is now an unmanned container with an API. The API doesn't just allow you to order chemicals — no, the whole lab is scriptable.

2. I think Facebook is right (ew I feel gross saying that) with their vision on "the metaverse", a protocol-based internet-analogue for AR/VR. AR/VR aren't that hyped up at the moment — But tech revolutions come in waves. It's a game of "are we there yet" — no, no, no, no.... And then suddenly yes.

Even further into the future, there will be computer-brain-interfaces. At that point Dream machine learning analyst and olfactory programmer might be job titles. 🤷