A tweet from @iamdeveloper today:
1950: how do we get people to listen to more ads?
1970: how do we get people to watch more ads?
2000: how do we get people to click on more ads?
2020: how do we get people to be ads?
2030: people are ads now
Don't take @iamdevloper too seriously.
technology of the 50s and 60s: transistor, television, satellites, computers, hard drives, solar cells, optical fiber, integrated circuits, arpanet, ...
not technology of the 50s and 60s: "Light up for a Lucky! The best cigarette you've ever smoked!"
If google is part of the "technology industry" then you could say there is no real delineation between the two industries. It seems like we're either making technology for advertisements or we're using technology to advertise.
I generally agree that current big tech companies don't really do much innovation anymore but I fear that he is just attacking the companies he doesn't like for political reasons but leaves others out.
The whole excessive partisanship sucks. It makes you question the real motives behind good looking ideas and unfortunately these suspicions are often correct.
The cynical motivations are transparent, but oh well. Best of luck, Senator Hawley.
The only really strategy for clipping the wings of any of those industries is to ally yourself with the faction that doesn't represent them.
That's the true nature of the liberal democracy, the worst form of governance except for all the other forms we have tried.
And even if you don't like it at all, let this just be another indicator that the general population is starting to wise up to the fact the "tech" business model has been getting more and more exploitative. You can continue rationalizing the systems you build at your dayjob here on Hacker News, but in the real world dang isn't around to hush the people who want to tell you to go get fucked.
I must say though,
>What passes for innovation by Big Tech today isn’t fundamentally new products or new services, but ever more sophisticated exploitation of people.
Does have some truth to it
The atrophy of real-world relationships he mentions is not something he made up, but rather a real problem. And I would be surprised if someone could prove that this problem doesn't contribute to teen suicide rates at all.
Why can't they be doing both, like industry has done since industry was a thing?
I think the senator has a very narrow definition of innovation which for the great part has been about combining existing elements to create something "new". Viewed like this, there's innovation all over the place.
I do like some of the restrictions he advocates for, but I doubt they'll ever be anything more than talking points.
I'm trying to think of innovations in the last few decades, but everything I can think of is a refinement of an technology invented 50+ years ago (mostly at bell labs) made possible by the exceptional strides in semiconductor manufacturing. It's certainly nice to have technology spread more widely from research labs to the general public, but I'm wondering if there are innovations happening now that I don't know about because they aren't widespread (yet?).
Anyone have any ideas of innovations since say 1980 other than in semiconductor manufacturing?
Whoa, 1968! It seems incredible that was half a century ago!
if you take a very reductive and somewhat pessimistic view, there have been very few true "innovations" in the history of mankind.
the wright brothers' plane was just a scaled up kite with a motor and no tether. the first computer was just a sophisticated abacus (or Babbage's machine if you prefer).
obviously the first plane was a huge stepwise advancement in tech and likewise for the first transistor computer. if you look at something like the internet today and consider how it's changed in twenty years, it's barely recognizable in capabilities. lithium ion batteries are vastly better than what was available for consumer devices a few decades ago, and you basically couldn't have mobile computing without them.
we certainly allocate a ton of capital towards technologies of dubious value (eg, social media), but we are still in an era of unprecedented technological advancement. I suspect it's just harder to find the stepwise jumps when most of the foundations for current technology are pinned down and many people are making incremental progress in parallel.
I'm not a internet/web person, so forgive me, but:
The internet today seems an awfully lot the same as the internet in 2000. In terms of 'unrecognizable capabilities,' are you thinking of streaming video or what?
Batteries is a good one, thanks.
I'm mainly talking about all the services that are available today though, not just serving static text with pretty markup. web search, video streaming, cloud storage, etc. were barely available (to consumers) or non-existent in 1999. I'm venturing out of my area of expertise here, but I believe sharding, cdns, and load balancing were also in their infancy then. big web companies would actually have their sites go down and have meaningful downtime. web services are much more resilient today than they were.
This week's episode covers a lot of ground and is worth listening to. It includes topics ranging from Tesla being purchased by Volkswagen, the value of Peloton, and the possibility that China is winning the Trump administration's Trade War. (Disclosure: Swisher and Galloway are progressive and liberal, and much of their commentary reflect that angle.)
EDIT: proofread first sentence!
Further proof that both Republicans and Democrats are the party of big government these days.