Hacker News Reader

Comment by davesque | Hacker News Reader

As much as people sometimes react negatively to stories like this (where some technology shows early promise in a research lab), I just now realized that I actually really like this kind of popular science reporting. It's concise, includes a few interesting tidbits of materials science, and overall conveys a sense of technological hope and optimism to the reader. Of course, we all know that technologies described in articles like this are often a long ways off from commercialization, if they ever achieve that at all. But I remember a time when OLED tech was described in the exact same way in the 2000s. Here's hoping that perovskite tech eventually amounts to something.

View on HN

I agree with your general feeling that new technologies need to be given a certain benefit of the doubt since by definition they are far from production... we literally don't know how or what they would be used for.

However, in this case I have a little bit too much knowledge about the field and I have to say that it's "not even wrong"... it reads like gibberish. Yes perovskites can be used to generate nano-particles which generate light on amorphous glass substrates. But the need to use lead based materials, or glass substrates, the difficulty of manufacture or the low efficiency, and so on are not advantages. They are disadvantages.

In summary this discovery takes us no closer to unbreakable phone screens for a multitude of reasons, but primarily because what breaks (cracks, shatters, scratches, yields) is the cover glass rather than for example the OLED display, which are now primarily made from/on flexible substrates anyway. It is solving some orthogonal set of problems that are not laid out in the article, and which I as an expert am unable determine after reading it without searching for the original source material.

> in this case I have a little bit too much knowledge about the field and I have to say that it's "not even wrong"... it reads like gibberish.

Good to know I guess. I should clarify that the information I get actually doesn't have anything to do with the particular topic. It could be gibberish as you say and it would still give me a sense that someone's out there trying to iterate and experimenting with new tech. That in itself is nice to know. As with OLEDs, in a lot of cases it's not gibberish. But I assume some percentage of stories like this are gibberish. It still makes me happy that people are trying push things forward and that someone cared enough to write a story about it.

Yeah, I just wish the clickbait requirement for something like "unbreakable phone screens" wasn't required to get attention. This is still basic science... it doesn't have an application yet. Pretending it does is more of a hinderance than support.

I mean the Economist cannot get economic reporting right; I don't see how they'd do well with technology reporting

thank you for bringing this up, it’s one of those things that younger me did not understand, i see the pessimism surrounding new technology and i want to point out to doubters that it will take longer than they expect but it will come. like you mentioned oled.

a lot goes into building and refining the production process but once it starts, oh baby pandora’s box is open.

>SINCE 2006, when Corning, an American glassmaker, developed Gorilla Glass to give Apple’s first iPhone a scratch-resistance screen

This editorial seems very Apple centric, not generic science centric.

Gorilla Glass 1 released in 2006, iPhone 1 released summer of 2007.

Is it in dispute, that Gorilla Glass was developed for the iPhone? There's a famous story of Steve Jobs visiting the CEO of Corning, saying they needed the stronger glass in 1 year and when told "That's impossible" responded with something like "Don't be afraid. You can do it" and other such things. Called the reality distortion field, Steve Jobs was famous for convincing people that they could do the impossible.

Corning has made chemically strengthened glasses since the 1960s.

Gorilla Glass is basically a rebrand of an old tech , 'Chemcor Glass', that was brought back off the shelf due to an apparently new need (mobile tech).

It was used initially in the 60s for windscreens in high end open cockpit race cars as well as prototype style LeMans cars.

It was scrapped for use in street cars because crash testing showed that the increased toughness of the glass actually increased passenger head trauma.

The reality distorted here is the one in your brain. Jobsian reality distortion field has mostly been like that - making people credit Apple even when they don't actually deserve.

I'd say that's "mission accomplished" by the marketing teams Apple pays(by salary or contract)to weave these webs of deception.

I really loathe the latest "Your wifi security is insecure!!!" when not using WPA 3, despite the fact the iPhone is the only device most people have today that is WPA 3 capable.

https://www.fastcompany.com/40493737/how-cornings-crash-proj...

Would you say there are any instances where "technological hope" could be a bad thing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com