Currently reading news and communicating with people around the world from the privacy of my toilet using my hand terminal. It can also understand what I am saying and excecute my spoken commands (to some extent at least). That’s some Sci fi shit right there. Pun intended
I don’t want flying cars because I don’t want 95% of the people around me to be driving regular cars. Can’t even use a turn signal and now they have carte blanche to drive over houses and shit?
The answer is mass transit. Mag-rail, not personal aviation.
You forget that technological progression is typically exponential as developed technologies each help to advance each other, and our collective base of theory grows. I also feel like machine learning can tip that curve a bit like it’s currently doing in things like protein research.
I think VR + generative AI is a clear pathway to Star Trek’s holodecks. Imagine being able to just say “I want to play a game I’ve never played before, in an Amazonian rainforest”, and then the AI renders the game and environment for you in VR. We’re genuinely very close to that reality.
Now we have the technology that I could make an e-ink reading tablet the size of a star trek TOS/TNG PADD, and it would probably have enough battery to last 6 months just because of all the extra space.
I had this thought recently watching a video about the Apple Vision Pro. If I saw some corpo in Cyberpjnk 2077 using that exact device, I wouldn’t bat an eyelash.
Even if it’s not commercially available in the next 10 years or so, an actual sustained fusion reaction would change the world overnight. It’s crazy how close we’re getting…
Probably going to happen. Proxima Fusion is eyeing early 2030s for a commercial prototype and those aren’t venture capital techbros, it’s a Max Planck institute spin-out. About as hard science as you can get. Wendelstein 7X has shown that the approach works, the thing exceeded all expectations (that is: It behaves exactly as computer models said it would) and scales up without nasty surprises (much unlike tokamaks) so they’re done with the tech fundamentals now it’s about engineering something cost competitive, think requirements such as replacement parts the reactor will regularly need not exceeding electricity market prices.
I don’t think we’ll get to the point where the energy that comes out will be higher enough than the energy put in to justify its use compared to other energy sources.
I don’t think we’ll get to the point where the energy that comes out will be higher enough than the energy put in to justify its use compared to other energy sources.
They also used to say Man will never fly.
Technically, just give it time. Politically, that’s a whole other matter.
Sure… I’m not saying fusion will never happen (it already does of course) or even that it’ll never be net positive for energy.
Just that, for energy it’s looking to be worse than most other options.
So I’m not saying man will never fly, I’m saying something closer to flying cars won’t happen. It’s not that we couldn’t do it, just that the alternatives are better.
I’m not sure how you can judge that, against something that doesn’t exist yet.
Simply based on past and current trends. The advancement curve on fusion would need to really step it up and if we say that it can, then we also need to accept the same is possible for the alternatives which means fusion still lags behind.
Fusion would need to be extra special somehow, and from what’s happened so far, it seems less special than the rest if anything.
Naturally this is all speculative of course, and being wrong on this is great either way as one way or another we will continue to get better at getting energy.
I’m not sure how you can judge that, against something that doesn’t exist yet.
Simply based on past and current trends.
Past and Current is not Future though.
The advancement curve on fusion would need to really step it up and if we say that it can, then we also need to accept the same is possible for the alternatives which means fusion still lags behind.
That logically doesn’t make sense though, because it’s assuming the same amount of “step it up” (AKA ‘progress’), which is not guaranteed. Fusion realized can far outstrip consumables, “winning the race” as it were, even if it takes longer to do so.
Your logic is also not taking to consideration how much reward you get for the effort. Even if one takes more effort to do than the other, if the results are much greater rewards, then it is better overall to do the greater rewards option.
Fusion would need to be extra special somehow, and from what’s happened so far, it seems less special than the rest if anything.
Well, it hasn’t been invented yet. I think we should probably all wait until it actually has, before passing judgment on it.
Also, it has the promise of doing that, in the same way that’s flying had the promise of a greater form of travel than horseback or cars, especially when long distances were concerned (AKA greater rewards).
Overall, I sense a general agenda from you, based on your comments, that you wish to forgo the investment in research and development for fusion, and instead concentrate on renewals like a solar, etc.
If so, I would again just reiterate how one has much greater potential rewards than the other, as renewables won’t get us to 100% of what we need (at least until the time comes when we figure out how to collect the solar energy from orbit in huge quantities and beam it down to Earth).
Also, it doesn’t have to be an either/or, it can be a both. Your comments would better serve Humanity better if you didn’t discourage fusion development, but instead promote both, as they both have positives that would be beneficial to Humanity.
Personally I would love to see both developed rigorously in parallel, a “pat my head and rub my stomach at the same time” type of philosophy.
I’m specifically referring to man-made fusion as an energy source… Otherwise essentially all of our energy sources could be called “fusion” since they all trace back to it in one way or another.
That’s not the stumbling block for fusion. Getting significantly more energy out than we put in is the issue. Other technologies did this better, and those other technologies are advancing more quickly as well.
That’s not to say it’s not worth trying since nothing ventured nothing gained. There are other technological advancements that will likely come from our progressions in fusion too which will be great. I just don’t see fusion as being a good way to generate energy.
I’d love to see an operating fusion reactor in my lifetime. Real sci-fi technology
Currently reading news and communicating with people around the world from the privacy of my toilet using my hand terminal. It can also understand what I am saying and excecute my spoken commands (to some extent at least). That’s some Sci fi shit right there. Pun intended
It’s seriously insane growing up on star trek and then seeing it come to life.
Still holding out for flying cars.
And warp drive!
I don’t want flying cars because I don’t want 95% of the people around me to be driving regular cars. Can’t even use a turn signal and now they have carte blanche to drive over houses and shit?
The answer is mass transit. Mag-rail, not personal aviation.
Yeah, motherfuckers can’t even drive in two dimensions. Adding a third would be a clusterfuck of galactic proportions.
I’m waiting for the post-scarcity stuff 😭
The post-scarcity utopia only happens after the Eugenics Wars and that whole Khan thing, mind you…
I mean flying cars are basically just helicopters.
Unfortunately the limiting factor on flying cars is the drivers. And the limiting factor on warp drive is the science not turning out to be a scam.
I could see AI at least solving the former.
portable fusion reactors will not happen in your lifetime unless you’re like 15 or something. look at how long it took for computers to evolve.
You forget that technological progression is typically exponential as developed technologies each help to advance each other, and our collective base of theory grows. I also feel like machine learning can tip that curve a bit like it’s currently doing in things like protein research.
How is Moores law doing these days?
I’d take a jump drive, if warp isn’t available.
I present to you, flying cars: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-57660603
I think VR + generative AI is a clear pathway to Star Trek’s holodecks. Imagine being able to just say “I want to play a game I’ve never played before, in an Amazonian rainforest”, and then the AI renders the game and environment for you in VR. We’re genuinely very close to that reality.
Nice. Let’s use it for shit posting and spreading misinformation
Same is true for the printing press.
When will people understand that our tools are not the problem? It’s us!
Porn, don’t forget porn. So much porn
Well played, sir/madam. Well, played.
Wireless tablets were peak Sci fi at one point.
Now we have the technology that I could make an e-ink reading tablet the size of a star trek TOS/TNG PADD, and it would probably have enough battery to last 6 months just because of all the extra space.
Your toilet understands you? Sweet
Emotionally? No. Linguistically, sure.
I had this thought recently watching a video about the Apple Vision Pro. If I saw some corpo in Cyberpjnk 2077 using that exact device, I wouldn’t bat an eyelash.
Do I want one? No. Is it from the future? Yes.
I still find it a dream for the future.
Do I want one? No. Do I want what it may turn into? I can’t wait to find out
Even if it’s not commercially available in the next 10 years or so, an actual sustained fusion reaction would change the world overnight. It’s crazy how close we’re getting…
Probably going to happen. Proxima Fusion is eyeing early 2030s for a commercial prototype and those aren’t venture capital techbros, it’s a Max Planck institute spin-out. About as hard science as you can get. Wendelstein 7X has shown that the approach works, the thing exceeded all expectations (that is: It behaves exactly as computer models said it would) and scales up without nasty surprises (much unlike tokamaks) so they’re done with the tech fundamentals now it’s about engineering something cost competitive, think requirements such as replacement parts the reactor will regularly need not exceeding electricity market prices.
really hoping ITER pulls it off or they make a new breakthrough design.
I am quite positive I’ll see reliable, sustained fusion reactions in my lifetime.
I’m also pretty positive it’ll be useless as an energy source. Still could be useful for other things though.
Why? Honestly curious.
I don’t think we’ll get to the point where the energy that comes out will be higher enough than the energy put in to justify its use compared to other energy sources.
They also used to say Man will never fly.
Technically, just give it time. Politically, that’s a whole other matter.
Sure… I’m not saying fusion will never happen (it already does of course) or even that it’ll never be net positive for energy.
Just that, for energy it’s looking to be worse than most other options.
So I’m not saying man will never fly, I’m saying something closer to flying cars won’t happen. It’s not that we couldn’t do it, just that the alternatives are better.
I’m not sure how you can judge that, against something that doesn’t exist yet.
Simply based on past and current trends. The advancement curve on fusion would need to really step it up and if we say that it can, then we also need to accept the same is possible for the alternatives which means fusion still lags behind.
Fusion would need to be extra special somehow, and from what’s happened so far, it seems less special than the rest if anything.
Naturally this is all speculative of course, and being wrong on this is great either way as one way or another we will continue to get better at getting energy.
Past and Current is not Future though.
That logically doesn’t make sense though, because it’s assuming the same amount of “step it up” (AKA ‘progress’), which is not guaranteed. Fusion realized can far outstrip consumables, “winning the race” as it were, even if it takes longer to do so.
Your logic is also not taking to consideration how much reward you get for the effort. Even if one takes more effort to do than the other, if the results are much greater rewards, then it is better overall to do the greater rewards option.
Well, it hasn’t been invented yet. I think we should probably all wait until it actually has, before passing judgment on it.
Also, it has the promise of doing that, in the same way that’s flying had the promise of a greater form of travel than horseback or cars, especially when long distances were concerned (AKA greater rewards).
Overall, I sense a general agenda from you, based on your comments, that you wish to forgo the investment in research and development for fusion, and instead concentrate on renewals like a solar, etc.
If so, I would again just reiterate how one has much greater potential rewards than the other, as renewables won’t get us to 100% of what we need (at least until the time comes when we figure out how to collect the solar energy from orbit in huge quantities and beam it down to Earth).
Also, it doesn’t have to be an either/or, it can be a both. Your comments would better serve Humanity better if you didn’t discourage fusion development, but instead promote both, as they both have positives that would be beneficial to Humanity.
Personally I would love to see both developed rigorously in parallel, a “pat my head and rub my stomach at the same time” type of philosophy.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. :p
Seems pretty useful to me, considering you only exist because of fusion.
I’m specifically referring to man-made fusion as an energy source… Otherwise essentially all of our energy sources could be called “fusion” since they all trace back to it in one way or another.
Why? Converting heat into electricity is the easy part, it requires no new tech
That’s not the stumbling block for fusion. Getting significantly more energy out than we put in is the issue. Other technologies did this better, and those other technologies are advancing more quickly as well.
That’s not to say it’s not worth trying since nothing ventured nothing gained. There are other technological advancements that will likely come from our progressions in fusion too which will be great. I just don’t see fusion as being a good way to generate energy.