What I learned at work this year(gatesnotes.com) |
What I learned at work this year(gatesnotes.com) |
Seems like a retrofitted use case that is more of an answer to the question "What could technology do next?" rather than the question "How to improve quality of life?"
If one started with the latter question---which is what is worth answering---a significant component of the answer would be to strengthen relationships and make them more authentic. Since the medium undeniably biases the message, it is important to prevent the disintermediation of relationships by corporations looking to insert themselves (or their technology) into positions from where they can better extract rent.
Technology can of course be useful in numerous ways, but the right solutions would put human emotions and relationships front and center, and sparingly sprinkle technical solutions only when needed -- and in many ways force people to interact more directly, even if it were temporarily (somewhat) inconvenient.
Anyway, it feels to me Gates is fixing a real problem but with very 1st world solutions?
> For example, software will be able to notice when you’re feeling down, connect you with your friends, give you personalized tips for sleeping and eating better, and help you use your time more efficiently.
Maybe it is just the skeptic in me but it is a lil captain obvious that more of those activities will give you a better quality of life. In fact, I will say that most people are very aware that they should sleep or eat better or even use their time efficiently and probably wouldn't need any form of software to tell them that. I will even wager that the overwhelming number of people that are feeling down, need more sleep or need to eat better can't do so easily and is possibly due to their personal circumstances such as having to work insanely hours due to (almost uncontrollable) working conditions and/or have a low to middle wage job that won't allow them to have any spare income to eat healthy/organic food.
This feels like a stereotypical 1st world solution to me that will only apply to certain type of people and I say this as someone in the privilege position to do so.
I know I sound dystopian but could someone refute my view? Am I missing something?
Maybe it is just the HN mentality of nitpicking to every mention of the word "software".
I feel like we've lost connection and patience for each other from lack of practicing empathy. More technology is not the answer to that. I hope we find an equilibrium where we move past such an infatuation with tech that we let it be the right amount of a participant in our lives and place more of an emphasis on the human experience and condition and value our humanity first.
I'm sorry, I can't let you do that Dave.
This feels dystopian to me too, not least because in order for software to diagnose this problem you'll need to spend sufficient time generating relevant usage data... usage that will (if existing social media are anything to go by) be a net contributor to problems with self-esteem, fitness, sleep, etc.
I'm not going to pretend to know exactly what he means, or how it'll pan out, but the cynic in me is expecting a greater net benefit from just deleting your FB/Twitter/Insta account.
I think he's very smart and great at setting huge goals then hitting them, but I'm not sure he's a great prognosticator.
The road ahead is from 1995 and is about the Internet ("Information Superhighway") which Microsoft almost missed, but got right just in time.
The Smartphone he saw coming earlier than almost anyone else, and Microsoft desperately tried to conquer that market. They initially failed because existing mobile phone companies (Nokia, Motorola, Ericsson) feared Microsoft too much and refused to partner. Then Microsoft had to enter the market with third tier player HTC, which had no distribution at all. Then they executed very poorly, trying to miniaturize Windows using a pen interface and killing the much better specialized numerical ui they had. Then they got surprised by the iPhone and touch screens, and took way too long to come up with a good implementation of that, with Windows Phone 7. And then finally with Windows 8, they redid everything again for no good reason, loosing any loyalty from customers they had left.
They missed smartphones, but not because Bill Gates did not foresee them.
What do you carry on your person now? Probably at least keys, identification, money, and a watch. Quite possibly you also carry credit cards, a checkbook, traveler's checks, an address book, an appointment book, a notepad, reading material, a camera, a pocket tape recorder, a cellular phone, a pager, concert tickets, a map, a compass, a calculator, an electronic entry card, photographs, and perhaps a loud whistle to summon help.
You'll be able to keep all these and more in another information appliance we call the wallet PC.
Microsoft's original mission statement was "A computer on every desk and in every home"
You're looking for a technological solution to a social problem - such things don't generally exist. It's not that technology is bad per se, it simply can't do what you're expecting it to do.
I can imagine a huge host of compensating bad behaviors that would result from something like that. Then should it go away are you just doomed and emotionally catatonic?
So refreshing to see someone with his reach pushing for nuclear.
If it was cheap enough companies would have built more and scaled them up and down to meet demand, instead France only got mostly Nuclear by exporting its excess and nobody else really got very close to full nuclear.
The problem today is wind costs less. But, when you add a lot of wind during times of high wind your nuclear becomes useless. This ends up driving up the effective cost of nuclear even higher.
Storage makes this worse as you would then just want ever more wind due to cost.
It's been pointed out again, again and again. Coal plants pump out more radioactive waste than is ever released by all the accidents to date, catching a plane will irradiate you more than living next to one, etc. etc.
I love this.
Given that he’s successful at investing, he must have some other standards.
"That love is watching someone die
So who's gonna watch you die"
For example, I would not trust my health insurance company with information that may indicate I am predisposed to an illness or disease lest they brand me as a high risk, pre-existing condition patient, and deny or price me out of coverage forever. I'd rather do my own experimentation outside of the 'official' medical community than to risk my own data being used as a weapon against me.
Somewhat unrelated, I feel that the next underexplored area of medical science is that of the gut & intestines. Having a toilet that could do continual personalized analyses of your urine and stool is going to revolutionize medicine. However, as much as I believe that this is an opportunity to change the world for the better, I would never purchase such a device under the current privacy and security climate. I hope we can start to resolve these issues in 2019 and beyond so we can unlock these sorts of innovations to help people on a daily basis with chronic conditions.
I'm almost 30 and those are my priorities, maybe that's why I am not as "successful" as Bill Gates?
>>I desire for my personal growth but I digress.
>>The fact that Gates mentions that he thinks about these things now as opposed to his 20s makes me wonder if I am making the right decisions here.
A few days back some one on HN mentioned that most people on earth, are not going to terrible failures or spectacular successes.
Once you come to this realization. You will take your health, mental health, friendships, relationships and hobbies far more seriously.
After a while all you want is a peaceful, normal life with happy relationships and healthy body. After a while you can earn enough. And you are going to be eating the same burgers, as a billionaire eats to fill stomach. The beef ain't exactly going to come from heaven for trading extra efforts for sure failure.
>> Still, I have made great progress.
That which is in locomotion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal.
— as recounted by Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_an...
For a lot of things in life, there are indeed infinite sub tasks you need to complete. Most of us aren't going to make it. Bail out while you have time.
To solve obesity we need the opposite of innovation. Nature has delivered the perfect array of nutrition for the human animal to thrive. We have innovated ourself into obesity and the reversion to the simple truth of natural nutrition is the cure.
I like not going hungry on a regular basis. Most people do.
So in light of the harsh reality that obesity is essentially a given, what CAN be done?
On first visit, it pops up a modal subscribe email dialog.
On a second visit, a distracting large survey thing slid in from the bottom.
Why would Bill Gates need spammy patterns that detract from reading the text on his personal blog?
As a bonus, that doesn't get blocked by adblockers, and doesn't annoy those who aren't interested. I might be bored and see what the questions of a survey are, and maybe take it if they're interesting, but not if it's a pop-up.
Facebook-controlled depression, what a dream
https://slate.com/technology/2014/06/facebook-unethical-expe...
Very interesting, I did not know that.
There’s an interesting use case for Facebook’s Machine Learning algorithms
> We had hoped to build a pilot project in China, but recent policy changes here in the U.S. have made that unlikely.
Maybe running pilot projects in U.S. instead of China can solve the first issue he mentions?
So, presumably, he thinks that mustering the political will is intractable. Then, a few paragraphs later, he admits that his preferred fix of nuclear energy is also blocked by... political constraints. Why he thinks he'll make more progress touting nuclear energy, which is wildly unpopular, instead of "green jobs", which polls well, he doesn't say.
There's really no innovation needed for the latter. Just educate people and when that fails implement better controls, i.e. sugar taxes on sodas and food. Fundamentally the goal should be get rid of refined sugars in foods, especially high fructose corn syrup.
People however like to blame other things and external factors. I'm X because of Y. It's time to take the pity cock out of the mouth and take responsbility for oneself.
That being said it's hard to rely on education for the average non-educated lazy person (i.e. the general masses) but instead we need to regulate the supply, i.e. what is already done with other poisons such as tobacco, drugs, alcohol. Sugar needs to be added to that list.
0 - https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/12/7/16587316/ba...
Without considering accidents, for only 50 years of comfort, we have shamefully produced deadly waste, that future generations will have to keep confined at all costs for thousands and thousands and thousands of years.
Unlike CO2, uranium pollutes in the very long term, destroying all bacteria in the environment. It is high time to get up-to-date with renewable sources of energy.
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
Yes 100% solar/wind would be virtually accident free, but if you argue this point too hard you let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
I always like to point out to people (it often surprises them) that the province of Ontario gets more than half of its energy from nuclear plants [1]. How often do you hear about horrible accidents in Ontario? Not so often - there hasn't been a major clean up required since the mid 90s. And these are facilities built in the 60s! Anecdotal, but this is the sort of "quiet evidence" of nuclear safety that is easy to ignore.
[1] https://www.ontario.ca/document/2017-long-term-energy-plan-d...
You need to pair it with some sort of grid energy storage. That's not quite a solved problem.
Personally I'm a fan of offshore compressed air... https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/toronto-hydro-p...
Nuclear is expensive because the rampant fear-mongering generates massive amounts of litigation, construction delays, and outdated/unreasonable regulations.
If you look at the cost of reactors in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc, they are one-tenth the US cost for the exact same reactor design.
I haven't had to end friendships as I grew, as those that diverge tend to naturally fade away. But I always make sure to nourish new ones that are more in line with where I'm going, and it feels amazing to have that kind of control in your life.
It's like we all had this innate drive (or susceptibility?) to zombification that we weren't aware of until the smartphone actually appeared
This is false.
Food deserts and lack of financial/nutritional education are a major cause of obesity. Many Americans don't have quick access to grocery stores and can only purchase fast food / junk food. They literally don't have time or the ability to change what they eat. Some Americans have grocery stores but literally do not know that healthy food CAN be cheaper. They see Whole Foods and rich people eating healthy and intuitively it makes sense that it seems more expensive. These are problems outside of individuals that exist on a national and global scale.
> Distance to store and prices were positively associated with obesity (p<0.05). When distance to store and food prices were jointly modeled, only prices remained significant (p<0.01), with higher prices predicting a lower likelihood of obesity. Although low- and high-price stores did not differ in availability, they significantly differed in their display and marketing of junk foods relative to healthy foods.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074937971...
Is it addiction? Is it some biological process (the body wanting to retain its new equilibrium)? Is it the fact that my taste buds tend to prefer the flavors of unhealthy food a majority of the time?
Clearly the problem is bigger than obese people being aware of their obesity and trying (and failing) to change it. There are other forces at play, and I think, difficult ones to overcome.
Separately, why not still try to innovate or do something to reduce the burden obesity places on the healthcare system (regardless of how you feel about the individuals)?
On the contrary, obesity likely exists because evolution optimized for the ability to survive long famines, which isn't a big problem in most developed nations nowadays.
After the book was written, but before it hit bookstores, Gates recognized that the Internet was gaining critical mass, and on December 7, 1995 — just weeks after the release of the book — he redirected Microsoft to become an Internet-focused company; in retrospect he had "vastly underestimated how important and how quickly the internet would come to prominence".[3] Then he and coauthor Rinearson spent several months revising the book, making it 20,000 words longer and focused on the Internet.[citation needed] The revised edition was published in October 1996 as a trade paperback,[6] with the subtitle "Completely revised and up-to-date.".[3]
That said, all of civilization is built on the ready availability of refined carbs brought about by agriculture. This isn't a modern phenomenon. The only modern thing is that suddenly our food production is outstripping population growth for the first time in ever.
Saudi Arabia for example is aiming for 15% nuclear by 2040. They have plenty of money etc, it’s just not a great solution to scale. Further, any advances you make today take a long time to put into production meaning we can’t wait for ‘better tech’.
We already use nuclear power around the world, but to displace fossil fuels it needs to become cheaper without subsides.
Book 4 of the Pendragon series (The Reality Bug) comes to mind. That was a formative book in my young adulthood.
Everyone - who isn't financially independent - could benefit from shorter hours and more creative freedom and financial security. Apps that try to parent us are not a solution.
As a recovering technophile [1], I remind you that Arabic numerals, alphabets, double entry accounting, and a zillion other things are also technologies.
Technology is more than modern hardware and software and algorithms.
Sometimes it's just a new take on old problems.
Sometimes it's starting with a new set of assumptions.
Sometimes it's revisiting problems after the economics have changed, identifying new opportunities.
[1] Postman's Technopoly, Wright's Nonzero.
Though, I could be wrong about that. I agree that there are some problems not solved through more technology and the "there should be an app for that" mentality can be a problem.
The details are:
* Bill believes in a new nuclear fission technology that addresses the concern of nuclear waste, traveling wave reactor [1].
* He financed a startup called TerraPower [2] to demonstrate and then to put in use this technology
* Being aware of the strong anti-nuclear sentiment in the US and of the more friendly attitude in China, he signed an agreement with China National Nuclear Corporation to build a 600MW reactor in China
* With the new US administration more hawkish approach towards China, some new restrictions on nuclear deals were announced by the Department of Energy in October [3]
* Gates' TerraPower venture found itself in the crosshairs of these restrictions, so the deal with the CNNC became for all practical purposes void [4]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower
[3] https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-announces-measures-preve...
[4] https://www.rt.com/business/447910-bill-gates-nuclear-china/
Political changes to put the cost of pollution on the consumer would help but is only part of the solution
Citation needed. This may be the case for a few rich Western countries but if we expect China, India, and Africa to gain a modern quality of life (which seems likely), global energy consumption will continue to increase. My understanding was we didn't even have enough raw materials to scale solar that far with current technology.
I agree that there will always be something to abuse.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/214641/household-adoptio...
PS: Rosenergoatom which runs Russia’s nuclear power plants has seemingly made progress in lowering operating costs, but it’s not clear how much of that progress is real. Though Russia is planning to ramp up to ~35% nuclear and is pushing a lot of R&D which is promising. Then again they have issues with solar.
That’s the catch 22, you need to not just be extremely safe but able to convince others outside your organization that it’s going to work. Having been burned twice by failure modes outside the original context it becomes even more difficult to innovate. Novel designs have novel problems and unknown unkowns can be a huge deal.
Can you get away with fewer guards? Well probably, but the minimum is not clear. How about thinner walls, again probably but can you convince others it’s a good tradeoff? Now extend that to everything.
There is very little in the world encouraging people to make good decisions.
Nuclear in China is 40.6 GW vs 290GW or so total power production. They are adding 14 GW but these things take time so the ratio will stay about the same. Meanwhile they are ramping up wind and solar extremely quickly with a stated goal of 1,300 GW of peak solar capacity by 2050 which they are on pace to reach. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China
In terms of power production of solar in China:
>...The contribution to the total electric energy production remains modest[8] as the average capacity factor of solar power plants is relatively low at 17% on average. Of the 6,412 TWh electricity produced in China in 2017,[9] 118.2 TWh was generated by solar power, equivalent to 1.84% of total electricity production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_China
In comparison:
>...Nuclear power contributed 3% of the total electricity production in 2015, with 170 TWh,[1] and was the fastest-growing electricity source, with 29% growth over 2014.[4
As far as long range plans in China:
>...By mid-century fast neutron reactors are seen as the main technology, with a planned 1400 GW capacity by 2100
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
In short, it looks like China is doing what any smart country is trying to do: develop all non-carbon based energy sources that they can.
But, I want to say that growth figure is misleading as it’s comparing as specific year when a power plant came online. In terms of total TWh and rate of increase wind beats nuclear. In terms of relative percentage increase Solar is insane.
Solar 2013 9 TWh
Solar 2017 118.2 TWh
Nuclear 2013 124 TWh
Nuclear 2017 246 TWh
Wind 2013 134.9 TWh
Wind 2017 305.7 TWh
Solar, *capacity* added per year.
2014 10,560
2015 15,130
2016 34,540
2017 52,830I'm all for advanced nuclear but it's never going to happen with such high start-up costs, especially outside of an authoritarian economy like China, which is basically the only country making major expansions to nuclear today. Maybe traveling wave or molten salt or modular reactors could be cheaper and better on fundamentals, but if the cost to start-up is still very high, the LCOE isn't going to beat renewables/storage in the medium/long term.
On top of this, look at energy widely. Demand is flat, old coal is shutting down, new renewables/storage and new-ish gas turbines are going to be online for a couple decades. Where is the payback potential for an expensive nuclear plant in a flat-demand environment? Renewables kill the wholesale cost to boot, so nuclear would be running a deficit in windy or sunny times. It's just hard to make the numbers work.