Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Name one Major advancement of the 2010's


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1
Sciencerocks

Sciencerocks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,632 posts

Name one Major advancement of the 2010's in Physics, chemistry, math, or medical.



#2
Casey

Casey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 627 posts

I think that in future decades, the 2010s will be looked on at a time where many industries and fields got their beginnings (in the sense of being released to the consumer market or finding genuine success for the first time), but they weren't that good or widespread yet.

 

Self-driving cars? They existed and were actually pretty good, but you couldn't really buy one yourself for most (or all of) the decade except for Level 3 vehicles towards the very end, and overall they played a very small role in society.

Virtual Reality? It existed, but got off to a rough start and was mostly a niche thing during the '10s. (To answer your question more directly, though, the birth/revival of the VR consumer scene is probably the biggest concrete development of the 2010s for me.)

3D printers? They existed, but were pretty limited in use and most people didn't own one.

Gene sequencing and gene therapy? Both those things were around, but gene sequencing wasn't mainstream aside from DNA testing, and gene therapy was in the testing phases and for all intents and purposes was close to nonexistent during the 2010s, aside from a handful of absurdly expensive treatments for rare diseases.

Artificial Intelligence? Yeah, Deep Learning revived the field back in 2012 and did some amazing things before the decade was over, but AI didn't touch the lives of the average person that much and there were many who weren't even aware of the field's revival early in the decade.

 

Overall, the 2010s will probably be looked at as an exciting time where many nascent fields were rapidly developing, fields which during the 2000s many people considered a lost cause... but not as exciting as the 2020s, where those technologies became more mature and widespread and caused huge changes throughout society. I think that I'd view the 2010s as being like the 1980s, with the 2020s like the 1990s - one decade being a time of rough beginnings and narrowly averted winters, with the subsequent decade seeing the refinement of those technologies as they emerge into their own personal 'springs.'

 

Videogames? Sure, they existed during the 1980s (and earlier for that matter), but they were primitive and simplistic for the first half of the decade, the industry almost crashed altogether before Nintendo revived it, and console gaming was barely a thing for the significant majority of the decade since the NES didn't see a national release until late 1986. The 1990s were vastly more spring-like compared to the narrowly averted videogame winter of the 1980s, the videogame industry perfectly healthy and well-established come the start of January 1990.

VHS tapes? VCRs were owned by 10 percent of US households as far along into the decade as 1984, and it wasn't until late in the 80s (1987) that VHS movies dropped down from their absurdly expensive $100 or so price tag. Compared to the 90s, where movie rentals were a thriving business from January 1st 1990 through December 31st 1999, with VCRs a household staple that entire time.

DNA testing? It existed, yeah, starting from around 1984 if I've been told correctly... but was only offered at one laboratory in the world prior to 1987 or so, and even then wasn't successfully used in a court case until 1989 or 1990. It wasn't until the '90s that DNA testing made any real mark on the world.

Personal computers? They were around, of course, but they were primitive, expensive to a degree that seems mind-boggling to people who weren't around back then, and even by 1990 only around 15 percent of US households were in possession of one. Not until the '90s that PCs become a fixture in every classroom or become a common item in homes. 

 

I mean, I'm sure you could do that with any decade (TV programming basically got its beginnings during the 1940s but didn't break into the mainstream until the late 1950s, color TV started around 1965 but didn't reach 50 percent penetration in the US until 1973, etc), but you get the point. 

 

On that note, this thread reminds me that I look forward to the thread Yuli promised for December 2019 where he writes about all the progress that has been made throughout the '10s. Hasn't been an insubstantial amount at all.


  • Sciencerocks likes this

#3
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts
  • LocationLondon

CRISPR - cas9 & Cpf1


  • Casey and Lily like this

#4
eacao

eacao

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • LocationAustralia

USB-C might actually standardise all physical ports. Phones, computers, tablets, TV's, all can make use of a single universal cable for data & power transfer. Best of all, it's interchangeable across all brands. 

 

(here's a sexy closeup)

 

usb-type-c-3-792x446.png

 

 

(a mamma and her cub)

 

belkin-usb-type-c-840x428.jpg

 

 

(an exciting action shot)

 

usb-type-c-la-gi-4.jpg?v=1484146153926


  • Casey likes this
Only take advice from people who have what you want.
You don't decide your future. You decide your habits, and your habits decide your future.
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. - Abraham Lincoln.

#5
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

(here's a sexy closeup)

 

...

 

(an exciting action shot)

Careful, you're skirting dangerously close to the no pornography rule!  :biggrin: 


  • eacao likes this

#6
Voight-Kampff

Voight-Kampff

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

 

Self-driving cars? They existed and were actually pretty good, but you couldn't really buy one yourself for most (or all of) the decade except for Level 3 vehicles towards the very end, and overall they played a very small role in society.

 

"Pretty good"? Have you heard about the fatal accident of a self-driving car in Arizona in 2016? (https://www.nytimes....estigation.html) Just one year earlier, in 2015, crashes with self-driving cars were 5 times more frequent than crashes with human-driven cars. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/10/31/study-self-driving-cars-accidents/74946614/) I don't believe self-driving cars will be even reasonably safe until true AI is developed. 

 

For a better advancement I'd vote for D-Wave's first commercially available quantum computer in 2011. (https://en.wikipedia.../D-Wave_Systems) It's only a limited type of quantum computer, but the technology behind it makes it a milestone of sorts...

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=fArXhQBLDWE

 

This could be considered an advancement in physics, at least applied physics.



#7
Maximum7

Maximum7

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 120 posts

Honestly not much. The best I could think of is movie technology. When people get stabbed or shot in the head on TV and movies, it looks pretty damn real.



#8
Casey

Casey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 627 posts

"Pretty good"? Have you heard about the fatal accident of a self-driving car in Arizona in 2016? (https://www.nytimes....estigation.html) Just one year earlier, in 2015, crashes with self-driving cars were 5 times more frequent than crashes with human-driven cars. (https://www.usatoday...dents/74946614/

 

 

The article itself goes on to say that the self-driving vehicles weren't at fault in most of those incidents and that the actual numbers when adjusted for accuracy would be closer to 2x than 5x. There's also been three years for the technology to improve. So, yes, I would describe 2010s self-driving tech as being pretty good.



#9
Kynareth

Kynareth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 148 posts

By the end of next year, self-driving vehicles will be pretty good drivers. 2010s are the most important decade for self-driving machines.


  • Sciencerocks and Casey like this

#10
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • LocationIn some cafe eating--yes eating--roasted coffee beans and reading semiotext(e)s

My only complaint with USB C is that it's replacing USB 1.0 through 3.1

 

The fact that my peripherals from the 90s can still interface with my modern machine without any adapters is amazing, and I think we're losing something really special by switching standards.


  • Sciencerocks likes this

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#11
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts
  • LocationLondon

OTOH we need to move eventually​ or they'll start to hold us back more and more. 

 

The period just after the switch from one standard to another (incompatible with the old way) standard is definitely the lowest point though. everyone suddenly has to spend a load of money, old models of tech need to be updated etc.


  • Erowind likes this

#12
Voight-Kampff

Voight-Kampff

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

 

The article itself goes on to say that the self-driving vehicles weren't at fault in most of those incidents and that the actual numbers when adjusted for accuracy would be closer to 2x than 5x. There's also been three years for the technology to improve. So, yes, I would describe 2010s self-driving tech as being pretty good.

 

 

Yes, I read the entire article I referenced.

 

Here's another way to look at the situation:

 

Self-driving cars learn via Deep Learning. (https://www.quora.co...erless-cars-use)

Deep Learning has no idea whatsoever what it is looking at. Look at how Deep Learning learned to recognize a wolf from photos of wolves and huskies, for example: one of the main clues it used was the background snow, almost nothing about the subject at all! (http://machine-maste...classifier.html)

 

That's not what I would trust with my life for determining if a Mack truck were coming my way. Applied AI is just not there yet, it only seems to be because it uses various shallow tricks. I claim that Deep Learning will *never* be good enough for self-driving cars, not in 3 years, not in any number of years. I claim we're using the wrong architecture. I hate to see more people die before we all realize this.

 

Anyway, I suggest another major advancement of the 2010s: discovery of the Higgs boson in 2013 (https://en.wikipedia...iki/Higgs_boson). That particle is what gives objects weight. Imagine if we could "shield" an object from Higgs bosons: it would be weightless and might be able to travel at virtually the speed of light with very little fuel required. (https://www.livescie...plications.html)



#13
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

 

The article itself goes on to say that the self-driving vehicles weren't at fault in most of those incidents and that the actual numbers when adjusted for accuracy would be closer to 2x than 5x. There's also been three years for the technology to improve. So, yes, I would describe 2010s self-driving tech as being pretty good.

 

 

Yes, I read the entire article I referenced.

 

Here's another way to look at the situation:

 

Self-driving cars learn via Deep Learning. (https://www.quora.co...erless-cars-use)

Deep Learning has no idea whatsoever what it is looking at. Look at how Deep Learning learned to recognize a wolf from photos of wolves and huskies, for example: one of the main clues it used was the background snow, almost nothing about the subject at all! (http://machine-maste...classifier.html)

 

That's not what I would trust with my life for determining if a Mack truck were coming my way. Applied AI is just not there yet, it only seems to be because it uses various shallow tricks. I claim that Deep Learning will *never* be good enough for self-driving cars, not in 3 years, not in any number of years. I claim we're using the wrong architecture. I hate to see more people die before we all realize this.

 

Anyway, I suggest another major advancement of the 2010s: discovery of the Higgs boson in 2013 (https://en.wikipedia...iki/Higgs_boson). That particle is what gives objects weight. Imagine if we could "shield" an object from Higgs bosons: it would be weightless and might be able to travel at virtually the speed of light with very little fuel required. (https://www.livescie...plications.html)

 

You have no problem trusting the pensioner who hasn't had their eye prescription updated for years, or the drunk teenager who got their licence a week ago, or the angry commuter who likes to tailgate other cars but a sophisticated machine learning system developed by experts, tested over millions of miles driven and which has a dramatically lower accident rate than humans will never be good enough for you?



#14
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • LocationIn some cafe eating--yes eating--roasted coffee beans and reading semiotext(e)s

OTOH we need to move eventually​ or they'll start to hold us back more and more.

The period just after the switch from one standard to another (incompatible with the old way) standard is definitely the lowest point though. everyone suddenly has to spend a load of money, old models of tech need to be updated etc.


Right, but I don't know that the form factor actually needed to be changed in order to increase its functionality.

USB 3.0 and 3.1 increased their bandwidth and amount of connector pins while leaving their ports compatible with usb 1.0 and 2.0.

s9dun6a1xmpz.png

I agree sometimes it's important to shift standards, I just don't know that it was necessary in this case. I have to wonder if the reason for the form factor shift is more for the sake of pandering to miniaturization in the form of smart phones and slim laptops. And I'm not saying that their can't be a compatible. smaller version of the connector, just that the primary connector should remain type A as long as physically possible for the sake of cross generational compatibility.

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#15
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

OTOH we need to move eventually​ or they'll start to hold us back more and more. 

 

The period just after the switch from one standard to another (incompatible with the old way) standard is definitely the lowest point though. everyone suddenly has to spend a load of money, old models of tech need to be updated etc.

 

Right, but I don't know that the form factor actually needed to be changed in order to increase its functionality.

 

USB 3.0 and 3.1 increased their bandwidth and amount of connector pins while leaving their ports compatible with usb 1.0 and 2.0. 

 

s9dun6a1xmpz.png
 

I agree sometimes it's important to shift standards, I just don't know that it was necessary in this case. I have to wonder if the reason for the form factor shift is more for the sake of pandering to miniaturization in the form of smart phones and slim laptops. And I'm not saying that their can't me a compatible. smaller version of the connector, just that the primary connector should remain type A as long as physically possible for the sake of cross generational compatibility. 

 

Good point, I have no idea when they decide to change things or why. It seems reasonable to keep using the physical connector shape for as long as it can be useful. 

 

I really think the obsessive miniaturisation of phones and stripping of components is a huge waste of time. They are small enough as it is, if they get any thinner we will start losing fingers. 

 

I'd much rather have a phone twice as thick with double the battery and better performance (or lower cost)


  • Erowind likes this

#16
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,426 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

^ Phones stopped miniaturizing half a decade though. If anything, they've been getting bigger over the past several years. 

 

Seriously, compare an iPhone 4 to an iPhone 8. I could probably wrap my fingers entirely around the iPhone 4, but I can barely reach from the bottom to the top on any of the new models, let alone the specifically larger models. It's just that most of this size is going towards computing power.

I agree that I'd take a thicker smartphone that has a better battery over a larger smartphone that is more powerful than a mid-range desktop, though.

 

What's more, modern smartphone batteries are actually stupidly powerful. The problem there is that modern smartphones themselves are stupidly powerful. Like I said, they're comparable to mid-range PCs. The iPhone 8, IIRC, is almost a PS4 in your pocket

 

Would you be willing to sacrifice that for more battery power? Honestly, I would, but I don't know about the younger generation who grew up with smartphones. I'm stuck in my PC/console ways.


  • Sciencerocks and Erowind like this

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#17
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts
  • LocationLondon

Yeah, reality is that people don't want tiny screens. I meant thickness more than size.

 

Still all this stuff like shrinking plug sizes, removing headphones etc. in pursuit of the perfect rounded rectangle is dumb IMO.

 

But I'm one of those people who buys a new phone every 5 years, and spends <£300, because I don't want a PS4 with a tiny screen and an awful control system (for 5x the price) in my pocket so I'm far from the target market for any of these things.

 

There's no real reason you couldn't fit a full size USB connector in a phone, not even mini or micro, i'd buy that. :biggrin:

 

EDIT: Kids these days! when I was young we had phones an inch thick which we had to charge by hand crank! And we were grateful! Get of my lawn!


  • Sciencerocks, Erowind and rennerpetey like this

#18
Outlook

Outlook

    Arab Muslim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • LocationBarbary Lands
The actual coming of VR started in the 2010s.
  • Sciencerocks and Erowind like this

The Prophet (saw) said: He who does not thank the people is not thankful to Allah.

 

Song to cure depression: https://youtu.be/9eCOLWnD5VM


#19
Voight-Kampff

Voight-Kampff

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

 

You have no problem trusting the pensioner who hasn't had their eye prescription updated for years, or the drunk teenager who got their licence a week ago, or the angry commuter who likes to tailgate other cars but a sophisticated machine learning system developed by experts, tested over millions of miles driven and which has a dramatically lower accident rate than humans will never be good enough for you?

 

 

Even a mouse, insect, drunk, or pensioner can detect something big moving at it, but a computer apparently cannot. I didn't say that it would never be good enough for me, only that I *predict* (with very high confidence) it will never be acceptably safe for the public, given its current architecture based on static neural networks.



#20
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,511 posts
  • LocationLondon

 

 

You have no problem trusting the pensioner who hasn't had their eye prescription updated for years, or the drunk teenager who got their licence a week ago, or the angry commuter who likes to tailgate other cars but a sophisticated machine learning system developed by experts, tested over millions of miles driven and which has a dramatically lower accident rate than humans will never be good enough for you?

 

 

Even a mouse, insect, drunk, or pensioner can detect something big moving at it, but a computer apparently cannot. I didn't say that it would never be good enough for me, only that I *predict* (with very high confidence) it will never be acceptably safe for the public, given its current architecture based on static neural networks.

 

Not if they are asleep, looking in the other direction, drunk or otherwise distracted, then the mouse/insect/drunk/pensioner will plough straight into the object and kill themselves and anyone else nearby. 

 

I think you're underestimating the amount of money to be made from running driverless taxi fleets, there will be big lobbying $$$s pushing this. The only people fighting it will be unions etc. and they almost never win anything in long term. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users