dude I have zero idea this is one of the weirdest things I've come across on the internet ever, and i've spent an unfortunate percentage of my life on the internet.
The time for cybernetic enhancements of human minds and bodies is, reasonably, a decade or two away from becoming mainstream. Leading up to that, I wonder if there will be enough effort put into consumer protections so that it doesn't turn into a knock-off cyberpunk novel.
I don't think we live in any dystopian future or Black Mirror episode yet, but I do think that if a character in one of those episodes had a flashback to pre-cyberpunk life, it'd look quite a bit like 2024.
Are consumer protections even the right way to navigate this? Could American government reasonably handle this? Supposedly, it'd be the NIH and its peer organizations doing this, and I trust them a reasonable amount.
While I'd love to try out cybernetic enhancements in a decade or two, as far as I know we're not even close to anything now, it's possible with an expensive MRI to see some brain activity, and cochlear implants do exist so that's something, but other than that, how would the cybernetic enhancements even connect to the brain, know what kind of information to transfer in what form, and do anything at all?
And even if we get there with something like neuralink, how big is the gap between training it for someone who is currently deficient in that limb or sense and willing to go through the rigorous and extensive mental and physical training required to master the new tool, and Joe Blow consumer?
I forget what sci fi story explored this, but society bifurcated into two branches of augments. One was what I'll call the "apple" crowd. You could get "boring" upgrades like a Inspector Gadget style hand. Or you could go black market and get cutting edge stuff that could and likely would cause you massive damage. But the drawbacks were outweighed by the advantages you could gain. So the tech companies sort of had clandestine observation reports to accelerate their own research.
Tangentially, I wonder how much of the research chemical ("legal highs") market is just companies releasing things to gather data for compounds that could be then commercialized.
This is a fun thing to think about, but commercialization of drugs is antagonistic towards the drugs working around the drug enforcement agencies that technically provide legal highs.
Cannabis is the closest thing that’s combining the two. MDMA is possible, but I can imagine can be synthesized to remove the euphoria once there has been more testing. Mushrooms, LSD, and Ketamine all show their maximum effectuation at lower doses would be taken recreationally.
Or rather, the government as effective as we collectively want it to be. And before somebody comes to explain about lobby and all, looking back in history there were solutions to even worse iron fists (I don't like those solutions, but they exist)
And government employees allow it to work because the populace allows it.
Gov employees aren't the main target or problem in lobbying. Politicians are. And people who keep on voting for politicians whose campaigins are funded by big business and billionairres.
bro if it gets THAT bad, there'll be too much chaos. Hope you have a private jet & lots of inflation-proof assets if you're trying to prepare for something as terrible as that
The majority doesnt even use most of the features they have on their smart phone. Rate of tech change does not mean people learn faster. People still take time to learn anything new. And the majority hardly have any interest in what mesmerizes and fascinates technologists. And rightly so cuz tools are meant to have purpose. Most technologists these days build shit cuz its possible to do so not cuz they have thpught to deeply about what people actually need. This gap will grow as rate of tech change increases.
An imagination that seems very reasonable to commenter but wildly off-base to everyone else.
I'd personally bet more on a resurgence of typewriters and film in the next decade or two over deeper integration with the increasingly contrived electronic world.
Have you used a typewriter or film recently? They’re terrible to use compared to electronics in practically every way and, I’m my opinion, only exist as a form of retro-fetishism.
I don't see how any of those technologies necessitates cybernetics, especially in the traditional sense of mimetic devices or brain computer interfaces.
It doesn't seem like a great argument for declaring these technologies, which have very little to do with the content of TFA, are imminently becoming mainstream.
The enhancement with written language already happened +10,000y ago, the enhancement with pocket calculators +50y ago. There are some bionic devices for locomotion, hearing, sight, cardio, epilepsy, but mainstream cybernetic enhancements haven't really kicked off yet. We still need to solve hard problems like durability, energy and biointerfacing.
> Even if this tiny company somehow became worth a billion dollars, I’d still make less money than if I’d worked as a senior engineer at Google or wherever
this is why they don’t belong in start up land
running and working in a start up requires a certain type of insanity
The OPs complaint is not that the risk is high, the OPs complaint is that the risk relative to their market rate is not balanced. Often you can end up working for junior founders and would be better off as a founder yourself.
If the founder views you as replaceable, then why not work at a big tech which would pay you dramatically more? Successful startups are not often populated by the irrational.
I'd say take a startup. Those early companies don't have a lot of staff so you can try lots of things, wear lots of hats. Good experience. Take cash, don't get played by options/equity. When you find the hat you like move into a more stable role.
i joined as founding engineer as my second job, 2 years after college. The founders were the same age which I think let them consider a young founding engineer. It worked out for me and I think if you have the opportunity then it is a great time to take the plunge. Knowing what I know now I would likely not take the same role at 30 due to lifestyle requirements (have wife and house now, back then I was paying very little for rent with roomates and had no issue with 12 hour days. I think the risk can make sense early in your career but most founders probably dont want to risk it on an untested dev with sub 3 YoE.
FaceID builds profitable user habit loops.
More real-estate on the screen to show things, easier to thoughtlessly purchase things if your password is a glance at the camera, etc.
I don't think this is a user-focused decision, I believe it's a profit-focused one.
