Hacker News Reader

Comment by ziftface | Hacker News Reader

Why would anyone actively work towards "ubiquitous electronics"? That sounds like a nightmare.

A person from the other side of the globe can bother you at any time of the day and you are expected to make yourself available for the conversation on moments notice. And it's not just for kings and queens. It's for everybody, like your annoying aunt.

I'm sure someone in the 18 century, when informed, that people are working towards that future would conclude that it's a nightmare.

I don't get your point. You mean we should just keep on building a dystopia because someone positive aspects will probably show themselves along the way?

My point is, we should always progress in all aspects of science and technology we can. And decide what to use and how to use it after we make it possible to use.

No need to go so far back, this comic calling mobile phones a horror is from 1919.

https://boingboing.net/2018/01/31/century-old-comic-accurate...

2122 headlines: New Gigantic Botnet Built on Western-Atlantic Plastic Waste Agglomeration Causing Major Outages in Critical Infrastructure!

Do we not have ubiquitous electronics already? What hasn't got electronics shoved it that could meaningfully use them?

If the cost is low enough, my bathroom mirror, my shower faucet, my locks and keys, my pens and paper.

Might be interested in getting a smart (e-ink?) tattoo, if it doesn't look obvious when it's in a suitable state.

Countless Ray Kurzweilian microscopically small computers the size of blood cells a billion times more powerful per dollar in 25 years coursing through your circulatory system maintaining perfect health and interfacing with your nervous system.

Some people say electronics of any sort are a nightmare. Where do you draw the line?

I'd draw the line by trying to evaluate the utility of adding electronics vs. not adding it.

RFID tags on clothing and other such items - good and reasonable, because it aids with logistics and has no major downsides for the customer (and potentially adds value, e.g. by including washing instruction for supported washing machines that could warn you if the settings don't match the clothes the put in).

Adding internet connectivity to most household appliances - questionable at best, actually reducing utility at worst (see [0]).

AI-powered fridges [1] - bad value, gimmicky idea that drives up prices, makes the system more prone to failure (added complexity), more expensive, and adds little to no value:

So you want to know what's in your fridge while standing in front of it?

Good idea: just open it to take a peek inside.

Bad idea: adding an LCD screen to the door that activates if you knock on the fridge door [2]

So you want to know what's inside your fridge at home while grocery shopping, so you don't accidentally forget to buy something or buy something you already have?

Bad idea: add AI powered item detection and internet connectivity to your fridge that then communicates with your smartphone, may get bricked remotely [0], get infected by malware, or become expensive to fix.

Good idea: add the same functionality in the form of a smartphone app that either scans barcodes or uses (local!) AI to identify items (e.g. by taking a snapshot of the fridge's content) and that can auto-generate a shopping list for refilling the fridge or by matching its content against a weekly plan of meals (feel free to implement this idea and make millions of it, I'll allow it).

There's certainly more and better examples to be found if you look for them, but these are just some quick examples illustrating what a quick cost-benefit-analysis could look like.

[0] https://www.electromaker.io/blog/article/electrolux-accident...

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/2/21046822/samsung-lg-smart-...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4aeGzafgbQ

Some people say stabbing someone with a knife is bad. Some people say you should ban all knifes, including your butter knife. Where do you draw the line?

Not a good analogy. Tech can be used for good or bad. Cheap processors are not the equivalent of stabbing someone.

Indeed they aren't. The "stabbing someone" equipment was this:

> a world where absolutely every object you encounter—bandages, bottles, bananas—will have some kind of smarts

Because there is little what those smarts could do for the user but a lot of ways how they could work against the user.

> Where do you draw the line?

I would draw it around the user. Devices aren't inherently bad, unless they're used against their owners. Also, removing the concept of ownership creates a new set of problems. Cellphones would be a wonderful technology if their main purpose wasn't to profile and track users pushing them to micropay or be exposed to advertising to use functions that they could easily find, download and install on more open platforms. Ditto for Smart TVs, car electronics, home assistants, etc. they all are faces of the same problem: manufacturers went past that line and the user lost all ownership and control in exchange for low cost and ease of use, but this came at a price that some of us aren't willing to pay.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com