hoopladler
That said, I think the reason why machine-driven advertising is so much better than its predecessors is simply that the predecessors were really awful. They used to do market research by installing double-sided mirrors in department stores then taking notes on what people looked at. It was absurd. Now, there's actually an even-odds chance that a targeted advert will meet somebody that might be vaguely interested - and that's absolutely orders of magnitude better than a billboard.
And also, to be honest, this whole complaint about cost-performance indices is a bit absurd - since as far as I can gather, they were basically oneiromancy before Google and Facebook came along.
I guess there are a few things that might make these projects less of an unmitigated disaster than your analysis suggests:
1. Musk is clearly working off the common delusion that 'getting in at the ground floor' is a good idea. In reality, innovators and groundbreakers typically go bankrupt. Investors who buy the bankrupt company are the ones who typically profit off the expensive research and development, without the associated risks.
2. If you consider similar examples, for instance, the English railway system - early investors losing money is by no means a bad thing. Even if 'getting in early' is bad business strategy, it's good for society in general if moonshots get funded, even if they never turn out to be profitable.
3. These projects, while obviously unsound and based on false premisses, will typically produce useful technology, knowledge, or techniques - that can later be taken up by governments (as in the case of railways) or private investors.
So I mean, sure, these projects are stupid and will end in stupidity. But they're also a better (from a human perspective) use of investor capital than pretty much everything else it could be spent on - more Walmarts, Amazon surveillance devices, or oil exploration - even if those things are certainly safer bets in terms of profits.
I think if you want to find a trend in computing, it's the same as the progression in other industries. Tooling replaces raw ability, technique replaces skill, and jobs requiring skills are slowly replaced by jobs that don't require skills.
Consider Go, for instance. There's no doubt that the opinionated, overly-controlling compiler, absolute minimalism, and conventional structure of the language is designed so that a mediocre programmer can produce passable code. A good programmer doesn't really need gofmt, or a compiler that tells them off for not properly commenting their code. Good programmers don't tend to abuse generics or lambdas or all the other things Go doesn't have.
So what it does, compared to C++, or even Java, is allows you to employ less experienced, less skilled programmers, and equally, to expect them to actually be productive, and not to produce morasses of unreadable gibberish.
Don't get me wrong - I like Go. But if C was the only language in town, there's no doubt you'd need more programmers, they'd have to be better trained, and their job security and compensation would be better.
You're almost certainly right about good metal-milling CNC machines never being cheap. I think the only possibility to make such a thing economical would be by re-purposing car parts (I think if you could work out a way to use common car parts and clever software, you could step around the fact that things manufactured to high tolerances out of steel are expensive - since car parts are both cheap, and well-made).
That said, the thing that really excites me about CNC is just how much it opens up a whole load of projects that I haven't had the tooling or the mechanical skill to take on. I'm a bad carpenter, so when I make things out of wood, I tend to have to allow massive tolerances in everything I do. Even a CNC that could only cut softwood would be really useful for me.
I've actually been ummming and ahhing about buying one of ali-express - where did you get your engraver from?
I do think that a pick-and-place machine is probably more compatible with the hobbyist world than home CNC - given that CNC inherrently requires robust construction, and robust, accurate components are inherrently expensive. I mean - this machine looks more or less like a 3d printer with some reels, and a scanner. Once 3D printing becomes a cheap technology, things that require accurate repetitive movement become cheaper too.
I wouldn't be entirely surprised if stuff like small robotic arms become available to the hobbyist in the next 50 years or so, simply because being able to do arbitrary tasks with a high degree of accuracy is incredibly useful.
At the point where CNC, not as in cutting, but as in general computer-controlled movement, is an ordinary part of the workshop, I wouldn't be surprised if things like this ended up in hobbbyist spaces.
The main thing I like about electronics is it makes me feel at home in a world of technology that's kinda crazy alien at least half of the time. Being able to interact with it in a proactive way makes it something I can get a grip on, even if, when we're frank, my soldering is shit.
If you do even very simple things rapidly enough, you can get amazing results.
I think your analogy falls down because an automatic bottlecapper does the same thing as you'd normally do by hand.
The difference for me is that a pick-and-place machine is an enabler. It would enable hobbyists to take on large-scale, distributed electronics projects - for which, right now, assembly time is normally the bottleneck.
If all hobbyists were solely interested in producing consumer-style devices, like bad versions of phones, or home-automation systems, then a pick-and-place machine wouldn't be a good idea for anyone. But there are actually lots of hobbyists that do stuff like data logging, where assembly time is a major problem.
I think the main reason why headphones often suck are cultural, not mechanical. If you make stuff in capitalism, it being cheap is always a great selling point, even if it craps out after a couple of weeks of use. So you get the whole market crowded with useless junk, and well-made stuff gets crowded out. Stuff that, from a technological perspective, is outdated, works better than new stuff because of this culture. It doesn't mean that the new technology isn't better. It just means that, with an attitude like ours, we could make crud using any technology.
A bad technological culture makes technology it can't mess up seem better than it actually is.
That said, I think a good, working bluetooth solution would be something I'd prefer. I like analog jacks, but honestly, cables are a bad solution for wearable devices.
It also makes any notion of 'absolute' personality disorder a kind of contradiction in terms.
But for my sakes, I honestly think the idea that blowing stuff up just so you can build them again is a bit more abstract than the question demands. After the war, many nations, the USA included, produced large and comprehensive social programs. This undoubtedly wasn't that great for the economy in general (the US share of global GDP steadilly ticked down for the entire period, putting an end to a century of rapid growth). It was however, undoubtedly great for Americans in general.
Between 1975 and today, until a few years ago, American share of world GDP hasn't gone down all that much, indeed, it's descended less than it did in the period between 1945 and 1975. The USA is richer as a nation than it has been at any point in its history. It's simply unwilling to pay for all the New Deal stuff.
I absolutely agree. My point is more that, the hidden criterion in basically every entry in the DSM is, can they make it work?
If you're in and out of jail, psychiatric care, or homeless shelters, you're far more likely to be of interest to a psychiatrist than somebody who is 'high-functioning', simply because the notion of treatment only makes sense in the context of suffering, and treatment only works if the patient actively participates.
My point wasn't that older generations are narcissistic. It's simply that, those in younger generations who have the same mindset probably would be - since you would find them in the aforementioned homeless shelters, or at the very least, in deeply dysfunctional material circumstances.
Equally, as culture shifts, so do attitudes towards what we consider appropriate empathy, self-love, grandiosity, or self-involvement.
So across the generational divide, sound strategies like 'follow your heart' become things that only people who are severly, practically dysfunctional would say - since it's neither in keeping with the material circumstances of the new generation, nor in keeping with their discourse.
EDIT: I just realized I thought you were responding to me, then realized you were responding to the poster above.
Before about 1975, unemployment was typically under 5%, and underemployment or precarious employment was far more rare. Social safety nets (for white people, at least) existed and were strong. University wasn't terribly expensive, and the chances of getting a job that delivered an acceptable standard of life was really quite high.
This meant that, with their basic needs essentially met, generations born before a certain point tended to concern themselves with ideas like self-growth, fulfillment, and personal goals.
Between 1975 and 2008, those concerns became increasingly displaced by survival-level thinking, as unemployment ticked steadilly up, and jobs generally grew more time-consuming, and less well paid, while commodities and rents of all kinds increased.
I think for a lot of young people, there's a kind of fallacious misidentification between the concerns of older generations, and narcissism. To obsess over abstract personal concerns to the point that basic needs are not met is narcissitic - and if somebody of a generation that went into the workplace following 2008 obsessed over personal concerns to the degree that the older generations do, it would absolutely impact their abillity to cater to their basic needs.
However, because older generations are typically in a good financial situation, having profited both from the pre-80's social contract, and often, from its disassembly - it's not at all narcissitic to care about personal concerns! It's absolutely rational - they aren't going to become homeless if they decide to go on a buddhist retreat, or engage in a messy divorce, or start a new career.
Narcissism gets picked out as a culprit since it's a way to both categorically assert that a different way of life is wrong, and equally, to lay the blame for the current situation at the feat of our proximate frustrators - the boss, the mentor, the parent.
I don't think you're entirely wrong, but I think there are two factors at play here:
1. The USSR's power projection was really good because it's really hard to convince people to fight for capitalism. For communism, on the other hand, you always have a million volunteers.
2. The USSR's military credibility when it comes to a land war in Europe was based on the fact that they were preparing for a near-home or home defense scenario. So, instead of investing in expensive fleets, aircraft carriers, and bombers, they invested in tanks, close-support aircraft, and anti-air stuff. The Atlantic would prevent the US from effectively responding to massive columns of tanks, since tanks are very heavy and hard to transport and supply. However, it also means that the USSR wouldn't be going anywhere with its massive war machine. It wouldn't have any ability to threaten anything outside of euroope. So the obvious result of any conventional war would have been the US conventionally bombing every Russian city to dust.
The result is they have a lot of problems with tin whiskers. Which is why you'll find about a billion forum threads about people baking their macs in ovens, and similar hijinks.
Granted, if you're not using a mac for anything that intensively uses the hardware (for instance, just text editing) you'll never run into this problem.
No way, no how. Russia's economy, at their peak, was 1/7th of the size of the USA's. At the end of WW2, it's unlikely they could have beaten western Europe, let alone kept the US out, who were clocking 50% of world GDP at the end of '45.
Equally, the USA could have never beaten Russia in the USSR itself. The entire nation was an absolute fortress. The armies of tanks, that would be vulnerable to air power in an offensive war, would be absolutely unstoppable in a defensive war, where you don't have long supply lines.
I mean, consider something like vim. It's a nice program, well designed - but undoubtedly insane, just because it's supposed to work in every imaginable context.
It strikes me that plan9 wouldn't be immune to the same phenomenon.