tintt

I still think that software in general does show up in productivity trends. Take a look at nineties on the chart in the article, this productivity surge can easily be attributed to spreadsheets, text processor and other software innovations that became ubiquitous in that period of time. It’s also true that niche software is hard to make right, but then again, take a look at Amazon — its crazy efficient logistics is based on the custom software and it seems to work fine for them.

Well, Facebook held the crown for way too long, it was bound to happen, but honestly I don’t see TikTok as a Facebook killer. It feels too niche to be popular in the long run.

Was wondering the same

Excellent point! Combustion engine did see a fair bit of progress.

Same here with iOS Safari. Thank you for the direct link.

> “What mechanism stops people from forging the original vaccine cards?”

None, and that’s the real problem of the CDC cards. For a service like this to succeed, it needs to come up with a verifiable solution, which I admit is pretty difficult to do other than on a federal or state level.

Mechanical watch is a mesmerizing device. Makes you wonder though, why there was so little progress around mechanical technology (not only watch specific) lately? My car can talk to me, steer, retain speed by following other vehicles, but the most amazing mechanical innovation it has is a frustratingly slow, whining seat memory function. It’s not only boring, it also relies on a century old tech. Watch are the same, auto wound mechanism was introduced 98 years ago, was slightly improved 60 years ago, still is expensive to produce and maintain, still has reliability issues.

Nice, didn’t know that one

It’s cool, but 2D transformations are easy to wrap your head around anyway. Waiting for part two!

I wish industry encouraged engineers more to pay attention to this kind of things, rather than to flashy bells and whistles. 30-50ms may seem insignificant, but has a huge impact on the overall experience.

You’re totally right, Saturn V, Space Shuttle, SLS – all of them are great technology, but financially speaking, they were all doomed from the get go. I weren’t trying to compare NASA and Space X, I was trying to point out that optimistic outlooks on large reusable rockets usually don’t fully consider implications of increased complexity of such project.

Agree on all points.

I’m pretty sure Starship is going to be more economically viable than Space Shuttle ever was, I didn’t mean to compare them directly. And you’re right, $1k/kg to LEO doesn’t sound unattainable even for F9.

With the ride-sharing Starship is totally going to cannibalize Falcon rockets, but I thought that was the point all along? I wouldn’t be so quick to retire F9 though. Even if Starship adoption is smooth, it’ll take years to certify it for crewed flights. And there’s always market for smaller launch systems (Electron seems to be doing well).

$7bn is just a third of NASA budget, it’s doable, but you’re right, there’s no reason to go as big as McMurdo Station with today’s technology.

People were optimistic about LEO shipping costs when the Space Shuttle program just started, but it didn’t exactly work out economically. Partially reusable F9 was meant to decrease lunch costs, and it did, but not to the extent some hoped. Starship, no doubt, will bring prices down, but then again, even $1k/kilo to the moon surface sounds kind of… an aspirational stretch.

TL;DR – drainage ditches, carbon dioxide traps, roofs that don’t collect rainwater and chickens that eat mosquitoes.