Always fun to be reminded that the world I take for granted largely didn't exist several generations ago. Bit scarier to imagine how the same process will play out over my lifetime.
It still doesn't exist in many parts of the world. Most of Middle East is extremely conservative when it comes to women's rights. In Greece, if a woman wants to visit a monastery she has to wear long skirt to avoid scandalizing the monks. I'm sure similar rules apply to religious establishments all over the world.
To be fair, there are, if not mostly rules, at least generally accepted behaviors for men as well especially in many religious settings. And culturally more broadly such as wearing shorts in many circumstances.
I don't really understand this claim (maybe I'm thinking too much "Ferrari" red and less "Rav 4"?) but if anything will make more manufactures make orange cars my male ass is all for it...
Men's clothing is also getting more interesting again, with attendant public hand-wringing in certain circles.
As the (male) driver of an orange car, I've definitely not experienced that perception. (specifically straight) women are the number one hater of the paint job. Nothing but compliments from my guy and lesbian friends.
In most of the western world if a man wants to visit the office he has to hide his knees whereas it is accepted for women to wear clothing suitable for hot temperatures.
For better or worse, in most western business settings--tech only loosely qualifies--men historically had a uniform (and now have maybe a few potential uniforms--but they had lots of tie options, I have a closet full of them). Women have/had a lot more options which I assume is both a blessing and a curse.
Yeah so they found if the boss wears short sleeves (reliably experiment John T Molloy, in Dress for Success which is like the biblical source on such matters, true social scientist) his employees slack off. He didn't investigate the causes, but it's a very marked difference.
Now, shorts are allowed even in funerals in the Caribbean, there's this special suit with jacket n shorts, long socks, because the heat is unbearable even the political monarchs wear that suit, like that suit is checkmate.
I once visited a Hindu mandir in the US during July, wearing shorts. They asked me to wear a big skirt thing over my shorts, which I did. Their house, their rules!
For a brief time in metropolitan cities it did exist. At least as one can see over on reddit in the frequently viral posts about women's fashion back in the 60s/70s in Lebanon/Iran/Afghanistan.
It's not even the clickbait posts: talking to (legitimate) refugees from these countries was eye opening. In less than a generation, they went backwards a century.
At least where I am, you're not supposed to visit temples dressed liberally because it needlessly tempts the monks who have taken a vow of celibacy. Same decency would apply to priests / churches.
I'm sorry but if a lifelong commitment to your religion and completely basing your entire life and lifestyle around said religion is not enough to quell your temptation, then maybe temptation is such a fundamental, core component of being a human being that we shouldn't be trying to suppress it so aggressively in the first place.
Large parts of Europe are extremely conservative when it comes to clothing rules. In many countries it is forbidden to hide your face in public. I think forcing people to show certain body parts is as offensive as the opposite.
I used to work at a mega investment bank, and most days, I saw at least one woman dressed like a hooker. Classy and expensive ones, I guess, but still, I could basically see right up their asscracks through their skintight legging-pants or microdresses. Obviously this kind of sexual display is going to have an effect on the monks, bankers, or whoever's trying to get some goddamn work done around them - that's why they do it. Hence, dress codes.
Not just a shorter skirt...the miniskirt reflects a cultural shift in how women are understood in society, a change in what qualifies as sexy, and a transformation of morality as expressed by comportment, among other things. It is a truly revolutionary development.
This is an area where you really have to be careful of recency bias.
Consider that someone who was born in the early 1900s and lived to their 90s would have witnessed (just in the area of technology change): the introduction of electricity in the home, perhaps also seen their house go onto municipal water and sewage. The move from horse-drawn to automobiles. The introduction of flight. The introduction of broadcast radio, then the introduction of TV, then the introduction of the internet. Not to mention a sea change in agriculture, etc.
It's tempting to think "wow things are so much faster now", but that was pretty damn fast. It's especially risky to base the idea of real rate of change on the current hot topics, that usually ends up being wrong (but not always).
I think this is an area where you have to be careful of people-like-me bias. (Apologies :) Most people in the world didn’t have most of those things, but they now largely all have cellphones. Any child with access to the internet can access any piece of information on all of the items you mentioned. And now/soon any of those kids can speak with an electronic friend who can explain it to them in their own language.
In short, a huge percentage of the world didn’t benefit and didn’t participate or compete or come up with ideas. I think it’s safe to say that generates more change, faster, for all of us.
I think you are vastly underestimating the changes that some of those technologies i mention had on the lives of nearly everyone in the planet. For good and for ill. Probably because they were “normal” when you became aware.
Sure, lots of people didn’t have electrified houses, or cars,
but very few weren’t deeply affected their rise. That doesn’t even get to into the radical economic shifts from agricultural methods and globalism (built on such technologies), or the political shifts that radio and then television brought, most places.
You are correct I should have been more careful in how I stated it, it to sounds like everyone suddenly got a personal automobile and am electrified home. Fair enough, hit the point stands.
Cellphones are nice to have, certainly, but compared to safe piped water and electric light, they are a minor addition to quality of life. Ask anyone who has done without the latter two for extended periods of time.
The point is that the cellphone is a multiplier with which every person can improve their lives. That was true before the internet (see fishermen in Africa using phones to communicate about the best current fishing spots) and even more so now.
If you put me on a desert island with an internet-connected phone that I could recharge once a day, I'd have a far better chance of surviving [1] than if you gave me a flushing toilet or a power point in my house. Obviously there are comparisons that will fail this, but this is to underscore the spectacular catalytic influence that everyone (roughly) has in their pocket.
Our child's carer has a mom living in Zimbabwe, who has no power and running water. She used her cellphone to contact her child when she was sick, to get money, get a lift to a bigger hospital. She made her own choice on what she would buy and in this extreme case it was the smart move.
[1] Help I'm on a desert island, here is my location. How do I gather water. Is this plant edible. Is that animal dangerous. How can I build a shelter.
My grandfather grew up in rural Ireland. He remembered seeing an electric lamp for the first time circa 1916.
50 years later, he was rebuilding jet engines. At 85 he “retired” away from NYC and moved in my with aunt and uncle. He kept up with friends with ICQ and was navigating snowmobiles with GPS around 88.
I think what we’re seeing today is a quickening of process. I don’t think the tech is the change, it’s like the Industrial Revolution — the change was how it empowered society. Are we heading for lives of less tool? Or some Asimov style distopian earth?
Imagine you were teleported to today from just 30 years ago, when many of us had been working for quite a long time. Sure. Many aspects of daily life would seem pretty familiar. Cars aren't all that different. In a given city, many of the same shops would even be present. But, almost anything to do with obtaining and using information would be utterly alien.
Are you suggesting this is a bigger change than say, 1910-1940, or 1920-1950 to use your timeline? I don't really understand what you are trying to say in the above.
Beyond that, most of the bones of the information systems were already there in 1993, you'll have to add at least another 20 years, if not pre-computer, to make it "alien".
I think ubiquitous cell phones would be a surprise, but it's hard to argue that is a bigger change than say, automobiles.
Ubiquitous everyone carries a smartphone mobility that isn't plugged into centralized information sources should perhaps, in retrospect, been predictable in 1993 but I don't think it was obvious. It certainly wasn't 10 years earlier to the vast majority of people other than as a hand wavy Foundation-style Galactic Library (which tended to be the SF-type prediction).
Also, don't take what I wrote to be "No one could have predicted this" but rather someone teleported in time would be just amazed about these aspects of ubiquitous information retrieval.
> Also, don't take what I wrote to be "No one could have predicted this" but rather someone teleported in time would be just amazed about these aspects of ubiquitous information retrieval.
The interesting thing is if you move that window just a couple of years forward to about 1995 and just after I'd seen Windows 95 and AOL and multimedia CD ROMs, I don't think nine year old me would have been amazed by the 28 years of difference at all. Bigger, faster, everyone uses the internet instead of brochures and often instead of TV... all of this seems obvious and this "social media" thing everyone in the future is obsessed with sounds a lot like the description of Usenet in the 1995 how to use the internet book. People use it for work, but why wouldn't they? (nine year old me didn't have a particularly sophisticated idea of work, but he was used to Dad having a home office and knew that was why he bought the new computer). The basic form was nailed early on, it just took time for the user base and infrastructure to catch up.
Smartphones are cooler, I guess. The tech's less cool without understanding the innovations in capacitive touchscreens and just seeing it as a neat hybrid of phone/console/PDA, but even with cellphones already being a thing, there are a lot of nineties plots revolving around the assumption that person A and person B wouldn't communicate whilst on the move, never mind look up information to solve their problems.
> there are a lot of nineties plots revolving around the assumption that person A and person B wouldn't communicate whilst on the move, never mind look up information to solve their problems.
Yeah, movie and TV writers have been really struggling with how to maintain dramatic tension since the smartphone. Could be a reason why we have all the junk superhero sequel movies, and all the junk serial killer TV series, where all the action is post-facto.
In my suburban California high-school circa 1990, there were multiple kids carrying "digital" pagers and a few with cell phones. They didn't seem like time travelers. Others would gossip as to whether they were rich, spoiled brats or maybe selling drugs.
It is true that pocket information was either printed material or something more specialized like an electronic dictionary. The newest information-delivery fad was multimedia CD-ROM applications. On the TV front, product infomercials were already a familiar cliche and CNN had already debuted live-streaming war coverage with the first Gulf War.
The local libraries had a mix of physical card catalogs and digital catalogs. There were still banks of microfiche readers to view archived newspapers. The digital catalogs were a mix of green-screen terminals to some centralized computer and some starting to be based on regular PCs running a library kiosk application. The libraries still had more space dedicated to the stacks of books than contemporary ones which seem to have more lounges and meeting spaces.
The equivalent of internet-based shopping was ordering from printed catalogs either by mail-order or phone-order. Most products would ship in 2-4 weeks instead of a few days unless you paid silly money for expedited service. There was still the lingering concept of cash-on-delivery, where you would give the UPS driver money or a cashier's check when they delivered your package rather than paying the sender in advance. You were more likely to buy clothes locally unless ordering from a company like Columbia or LL Bean.
The "everyone carries a smartphone that can talk to various information sources" part was an easy extrapolation of things that already existed in 1994: Motorola Envoy, a ~tablet (well, PDA using parlance from those times) with a wireless modem, was released in 1994. General Magic, a company that aimed to build such a device, was created in 1990.
I grant you that the existence of such easy to query information sources was probably less predictable.
I would argue that the smartphone is a smaller change to society than the quickly ubiquitous automobile.
You can argue about precursors to automobiles on that adoption curve, but there were many precursors to the smartphones on the go connectivity such as the first pager system launched all the way back in 1950. And of course the internet had been around for decades by 1993.
We think of the internet as a huge revolution in how people shop for example, but fundamentally it’s the same basic idea as introduced by the ubiquitous sears catalog by telephone or even mail.
Again, this confuses me. I was pointing out that the current rate of change is not obviously more rapid than about 100 years ago. If you are trying to provide a counterexample I think you've failed to establish one, and if you weren't I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve, other than a generic "gee, the internet has come a long way in the last 30 years". I don't think anyone would claim it hasn't, but I don't get your point, I guess.
Star Trek communicators and tricorders come pretty close, but then again that was predicted for the 23rd century.
One beef I have about The Expanse is that they have cell phones, albeit fancy holographic ones. Not sure we will still be using that paradigm, we may have moved into wearable devices or something involving direct brain communication by then. We are already on the verge of that.
There has been a huge shift in the way we interact with government and banking services. I no longer have to visit the motor vehicle registry to get my car registered (used to be an annual PITA), don't have to fill out a paper form and mail it to do my taxes, I renew all my insurance online rather than going into a physical building, can check my bank balance any time I want, transfer money etc.
I'm only 54 but the world did change radically since I was a teenager. That's only 10 years since the 1993 benchmark of "alien". That was a wild 10 years.
That's the really fascinating thing for me. You were a young adult when the shift happened. I turn 40 this year and in a lot of ways it feels like it's been, mobile phones being the exception, logical incremental improvements since I was a teenager. I had a 56k modem for 2 years but got a 1.5MBit DSL line when I was around 16. Computing power has grown dramatically from my 133MHz Pentium with 16MB of RAM, but nothing feels fundamentally that much different beyond the fact that half the apps I have installed on my machine are written in HTML and JavaScript, embed a full web browser, and use dramatically more RAM than they used to.
I remember the shift. I remember the upgrade from my VIC-20 to my XT to my 586, but I don't remember life being that much different. The biggest difference, for me, is this whole notion of "being available everywhere all the time" that came along first with cellphones and then doubled down with smartphones. I remember being able to take off on my bike, going to a park, and reading a book with absolutely no distraction at all. Or going to the cabin and not having an Internet connection.
In the context of everyday personal computing, I would argue computing power improvements have plateaued since around 2011~2012.
Think about it: Intel Sandy Bridge and AMD Bulldozer CPUs are still perfectly practical to use today for all everyday tasks if we put aside arbitrary software limitations (read: Windows 11). Go and install Windows 10 on a Sandy Bridge, it'll be just as practically-performant as the latest Raptor Lake for all your everyday computing needs.
It's kind of interesting to look back when you're one of the guys who also witnessed the mindblowing advances in computing we had in the 90s and 00s (like you and me). The steep climb, followed by the leveling off.
My wife still uses a C2D Macbook Pro (with an SSD and 16GB RAM upgrade, if I recall correctly). It’s totally fine for most of the work she does with it. While I needed to get a beefier laptop for the work I’m doing now (involving processing TB-sized datasets), my 2014 Mac Mini (also with an SSD upgrade) still lives happily on my desk connected to a 4K monitor.
Yeah, that steep climb was amazing! Going from 3kB of RAM, to 640kB of RAM, to 16MB of RAM, to 1GB, to 16GB was incredible. I remember my first dual CPU computer and being blown away that I could burn a CD, listen to music, and play Counterstrike at the same time (Abit BP6, 2x Celeron 450s). Maybe if I still gamed I’d be more blown away by how much things continue to evolve but in a lot of ways the newer CPUs and more RAM etc. mostly just feel like a way to compensate for increasingly bloated software in my day-to-day “office work” activities.
Maybe to you, but 30 years ago I was already using the internet. BBSes were common in tech circles as well. We didn't have google, but there were search engines to look for files that you could then FTP. AOL was already nearing their peak, them and competitors were in many ways trying to be what the internet became. 30 years ago my dad was already calling in to work from home (2400 baud was not as good as being in the office, but when a customer has a problem at 3am that was the fastest way to fix the problem). 30 years ago people would get the details wrong, but they had already imagined today's world even if they couldn't actually take part in one of the forerunners to it.
I was very much into BBSs. Never AOL, although CIS. 30 years ago? I don't think I had an Internet connection though. (Had been barely exposed to it in school in the late 70s.) Got things like competitive spec information as a product manager from requesting it from analysts we paid a lot of money to for faxing us data sheets. Pricing info was very fragmentary. There were cell phones--barely--not sure when I got my first one as a rarely-used backup device.
A mobile almost always connected world might have been something I might have imagined in some form as futurology but would probably have take different forms. See Pournelle's version of not-Wikipedia in Oath of Fealty for example.
My local university had a free dialup number that you could use to telnet into anything on that supported telnet. There were a few BBSes on the internet, but I didn't know how to do anything with it. 29 years and 6 months ago I actually went to university for the first time and my dorm had terminals, plus some of my homework actually required that I do things that were on the internet.
The first wifi connected laptops were also coming out at about that time. Nobody thought of phones as for more than voice yet (cell phones did exist, but the cost per minute was very high, and they only supported voice. They also didn't fit in a pocket).
Like I said the ideas were all in place close enough that someone from 30 years ago would recognize everything as the future they imagined - but the details are very different between what they imagined and what the reality turned out to be.
30 years ago, 1993... isn't that when Bill Clinton's inauguration was live streamed over the internet? Or was that '97? ...either way, the internet was definitely up and coming around then.
I don't know about Bill, but in '93 I was downloading porn (and genuinely useful information) in the university lab from mainly academic sites.
For reasons I forget we could not use ftp. The workaround was telnet in, cat meow.jpg | uuencode. Then copy the terminal output to a text editor, save and uudecode it open in xview. And wait for the jpeg to decode, line by line...
All this on glorious HP PA-RISC workstations.
The intervening years have been simplifying the access to information from NCSA mosaic to ChatGPT today. Amazing to watch it happen.
> But, almost anything to do with obtaining and using information would be utterly alien.
Would it? I doubt it. Computers answering 'arbitrary' queries were a trope of popular fiction for a lot longer than the past 30 years, and computers answering limited queries were already commonplace. In the lifespan of someone who was an adult in 1993, computers went from being something that occupied most of a room to something that could be found in many offices.
Also, the first cell phone was built in 1973.
For the information age to be truly alien, you have to go back to a time well before Turing machines. 1933? Maybe even further past that, to before wireless communication. 1873?
I wonder how much of the 20th century progress would have happened without two and a half wars (two world wars and a cold one). Flight for example went from cool novelty to quite useful weapon to essential part of strategy in, what, 30 years? Maybe that would not have happened without ww1 and ww2.
She herself pointed that she didn't invent mini, just followed her customers preferred style. But when facts won't make a catchy headline, who would care about them? Not journos for sure
It's a not exactly a common name in Germany, but also not unusual. The owner family of BMW is called Quandt (with a slight spelling variation) for example.
I'm glad she got to live to see fashion win out over prudity. Other than the indefensible ban on the female chest, I see virtually no limits on how people are free to dress in public in recent years, at least in more edgy urban areas.
Even that bit seems to be shifting. Recent avant-garde fashion is already being bolder with translucent fabrics and edgier cuts in the breast area¹. These are the kind of dresses and tops where a bra is not just optional, but really out of the question.
The Covid lockdowns also seem to have had an effect on the wearing of bras with plenty of people with smaller breasts ditching them completely (my wife did) or going for bralettes instead.
Yes, I see the same trends! I live in a fashion forward area of NY and bras are few and far between in recent years. And fully translucent tops are not uncommon in a lot of dance/club scenes.
