Skip Navigation
94 comments
  • I'm genuinely not sure that anything has been invented in the 21st century.

    • Many things that were conceptually conceived in the 20th century didn't become viable until the 21st, such as OLED, VR and AR, raytracing, telesurgery, a whole slew of types of artificial organs, a gigantic amount of miscellaneous advancements in integrated circuit fabrication, alternative vehicle fuel such as methane, hydrogen and rechargeable batteries; maglev trains, innumerable safety improvements in aviation, mRNA vaccines and so on and so forth. I don't think it's fair to credit all that stuff to the 20th century, unless someone somewhere saying "be real cool if we could do that" counts as inventing something.

      • OLEDs were built in 1987 I saw my first VR demonstration in the 90s (and it wasn't cutting edge then). I saw my first AR demonstration then as well as part of an undergraduate engineering fair. And so on. I just looked up maglev trains - in commercial use since 1984.

        I don't disagree that there hasn't been refinements, improvements, or commercialization of technology, but there hasn't been a technological leap or invention that I can think of in the 21st century.

    • Yeah, I was thinking about it and then asked here. It seems like most of nice stuff was invented in the 19st century, and in the past 24 years we just improve it.

    • Only birds.

  • The 21st century has been mostly focused on finding new applications of existing technology. A lot of things are changing in pretty much every aspect of life, but nothing is entirely new.

    The internet has really changed the shape of our world, but, even though it really kicked off after the year 2000, it was invented during the 20th century.

    Something to keep in mind is that humanity is redifining what counts as an invention, a lot of ideas are created all the time, so the bar has been raised significantly.

    Also, we need to keep in mind how big corps have been killing innovation in the name of profit. New products are being created all the time, but they are bought by bigger companies and burried. This is happenig because these innovations carry a certain risk that an established company with a good revenue flow is not willing to accept.

    Personally, I am excited about the field of Social Computing, it is still at its infancy and has a lot of potential. The main idea is to create alogirthms based on human interactions that solve real world problems. A few questions one may ask include: How misinformation is being spread, and what is the optimal way to fight it? How do we fight corruption and authoriative power? These questions have been approached by a lot of fields, but creating algorithms and proving their effectiveness requires a deep understanding of computer science.

    • Personally, I am excited about the field of Social Computing, it is still at its infancy and has a lot of potential. The main idea is to create alogirthms based on human interactions that solve real world problems. A few questions one may ask include: How misinformation is being spread, and what is the optimal way to fight it? How do we fight corruption and authoriative power? These questions have been approached by a lot of fields, but creating algorithms and proving their effectiveness requires a deep understanding of computer science.

      I'm not a pessimistic person (I'm neutral), but the sinister implications are obvious.

      • Well, I can see your point of view, after all computer science has been used for a lot of sinister things in our time. However, science is a neutral thing on itself, how we use it makes the difference.

        A great example are corporate social media vs the fediverse. While we can all see the good a social media platforms can offer, they way corporate social media have been shaped introduces a lot of problems. Given the circumstances I may argue they were a necessary step, but it's definitely time for change, and a lot of people (including us right now) are working hard for that change.

        Social Computing as field would study this change, how people made decisions, and how it influenced both their lives and the society we live in. It involves asking questions like: How the fediverse came to be? How the transition could have been faster? Or, How it can be used for the greater good?

        Of course, these questions can be shaped in an exploitative way like: How the evolution of the fediverse could stopped or slowed down? How the fediverse could be exploited for the gain of the few? etc...

        In the end, I believe the question is who is more powerful, a few people with a lot of money, or a lot of people with little money? Right now the few seem to have the upper hand, but if the access to resources is the only difference, then I believe that we can be optimistic as science and technology have always been about doing more with less resources.

  • The Internet Archive. Technically founded in '96, but didn't come into its own until the mid aughts. It is an awe-inspiring thing that corporate greed has been trying to take from us.

  • The fediverse. I can't believe nobody mentioned that yet.

    After all, this entire website wouldn't exist without it, and we'd be all stuck on terrible, terrible Reddit (and Twitter, and... pretty much any centralized social media platform that are so well known).

94 comments