Ask HN: What do you think will be “the next big thing”?
49 comments
Children---the conceiving, raising, and educating of.
Smart people aren't having kids. Many of those who do, pass off their care to strangers or government schools. When they get out of high school, we're not sure what to do with them---higher education is riddled with problems, but so is entry-level hiring.
Will we have self-driving cars in 2038? Because we will have 18-yr-olds.
Smart people aren't having kids. Many of those who do, pass off their care to strangers or government schools. When they get out of high school, we're not sure what to do with them---higher education is riddled with problems, but so is entry-level hiring.
Will we have self-driving cars in 2038? Because we will have 18-yr-olds.
I agree education of children could be the next big thing. Could being the word here.
Yes the internet gives us more of an ability to communicate and share idea. But how do you translate those into practical application in public education?
Yes the internet gives us more of an ability to communicate and share idea. But how do you translate those into practical application in public education?
There are too many people.
People aren't the problem. The problem is people who have negative value.
A person can grow more food, build more homes, improve the environment, improve energy usage, staff schools and hospitals. Every negative issue with overpopulation can be countered with a person.
But there aren't enough useful people. And I think this is an issue with the system. We do not need more people whose life goal is "financial freedom/FU money", minimizing taxes paid, and becoming parasites to society. We need more people creating wealth, but most people are obsessed with trying to get a larger slice of wealth while contributing as little as possible.
We need to stop trapping people in poverty, where they're useful only for minimum wage labor, but become a burden on the welfare system. Nobody wants to live like this, but poverty means they have no choice.
A hack might be only letting people who want children and want to take care of children have kids, and have multiple kids. While those who don't like kids get improved access to birth control.
A person can grow more food, build more homes, improve the environment, improve energy usage, staff schools and hospitals. Every negative issue with overpopulation can be countered with a person.
But there aren't enough useful people. And I think this is an issue with the system. We do not need more people whose life goal is "financial freedom/FU money", minimizing taxes paid, and becoming parasites to society. We need more people creating wealth, but most people are obsessed with trying to get a larger slice of wealth while contributing as little as possible.
We need to stop trapping people in poverty, where they're useful only for minimum wage labor, but become a burden on the welfare system. Nobody wants to live like this, but poverty means they have no choice.
A hack might be only letting people who want children and want to take care of children have kids, and have multiple kids. While those who don't like kids get improved access to birth control.
> A hack might be only letting people who want children and want to take care of children have kids, and have multiple kids.
How? We can not even achieve that for pets. Can you come up with any valid qualification process for this?
How? We can not even achieve that for pets. Can you come up with any valid qualification process for this?
It's too big a problem to go into detail, but it's more of a social/cultural problem and the wrong incentives.
Poorer families and cultures are encouraged to have kids, because kids can bring in more money, take care of other kids, feed their parents. People are often told, "Who's going to take care of you when you get old?" Having kids as an investment/retirement plan is bad.
Then there are those who really want kids and would love to take care of them. 2-child policies are bad for them and the punishment can be too harsh. It's better for those people to have 4 kids, while other individuals have 0.
Policies should be more towards the quality of kids and not quantity. One of the biggest expenses is college, medical (especially special children), and housing. Housing is hard to fix, but we could probably subsidize college and special education more.
Poorer families and cultures are encouraged to have kids, because kids can bring in more money, take care of other kids, feed their parents. People are often told, "Who's going to take care of you when you get old?" Having kids as an investment/retirement plan is bad.
Then there are those who really want kids and would love to take care of them. 2-child policies are bad for them and the punishment can be too harsh. It's better for those people to have 4 kids, while other individuals have 0.
Policies should be more towards the quality of kids and not quantity. One of the biggest expenses is college, medical (especially special children), and housing. Housing is hard to fix, but we could probably subsidize college and special education more.
Plus at the macro level, most economies are consumption driven and rely on population as a major driver of growth.
I disagree with subsidizing college more that it is already. There are numerous scholarships available to promising students. Also, the government has been directly and indirectly funding colleges through grants and easy to get student loans. The problem with this is people going to college who might not be able to perform at that level, or who are unable to find a job that pays high enough after graduation. There is research that shows that some minority groups tend to pick careers in lower paying fields because they want to make a social impact (think teaching, social work, etc), so not everyone's goal is to maximize profit. There are plenty of trades that one can make more money working in, such as diesel-electric mechanic, welder, auto mechanic, aviation mechanic, etc.
I disagree with subsidizing college more that it is already. There are numerous scholarships available to promising students. Also, the government has been directly and indirectly funding colleges through grants and easy to get student loans. The problem with this is people going to college who might not be able to perform at that level, or who are unable to find a job that pays high enough after graduation. There is research that shows that some minority groups tend to pick careers in lower paying fields because they want to make a social impact (think teaching, social work, etc), so not everyone's goal is to maximize profit. There are plenty of trades that one can make more money working in, such as diesel-electric mechanic, welder, auto mechanic, aviation mechanic, etc.
While I don't disagree with most of what you said, I still think there are too many people. I think you are only looking at the US. Look at the conditions that people live in around the world, especially in crowded cities in places like China. The world can support more people if it has to, but the estimates I've seen range from supporting 8 billion to 11 billion people. The UN is estimating that the population will peak around 2050-2060 with 11.5 billion people.
The real question is sustainability. Our economies are based on consumption, contain a lot waste/pollution, and unevenly distribute resources. The areas most likely to grow (third world areas) are also have the least environmental laws or enforcement.
Why do people who are financially independent or pay the legal minimum in taxes need to go? To me, it sounds like it would be better to fix the tax system, the welfare systems, and the conditions that trap people in poverty.
Also, how do you suggest we just grow more food? Land suitable for growing food is shrinking worldwide. It is highly unlikely that we will "need more people growing food", since the trend we are seeing is for larger mechanized and automated monoculture farms replacing small farms.
I also don't see access to birth control being the main goal. It is certainly a big goal in some countries along with changing cultural perceptions of using it, like what has/is happening in India. But there will be people in developed societies that have many kids too. I see plenty of people who have large families and seem to grow them further regardless of their financial situation even if they have access to birth control.
The real question is sustainability. Our economies are based on consumption, contain a lot waste/pollution, and unevenly distribute resources. The areas most likely to grow (third world areas) are also have the least environmental laws or enforcement.
Why do people who are financially independent or pay the legal minimum in taxes need to go? To me, it sounds like it would be better to fix the tax system, the welfare systems, and the conditions that trap people in poverty.
Also, how do you suggest we just grow more food? Land suitable for growing food is shrinking worldwide. It is highly unlikely that we will "need more people growing food", since the trend we are seeing is for larger mechanized and automated monoculture farms replacing small farms.
I also don't see access to birth control being the main goal. It is certainly a big goal in some countries along with changing cultural perceptions of using it, like what has/is happening in India. But there will be people in developed societies that have many kids too. I see plenty of people who have large families and seem to grow them further regardless of their financial situation even if they have access to birth control.
> People aren't the problem. The problem is people who have negative value. A person can grow more food, build more homes ...
Resources on this Earth are limited. Things like space/real estate/ agricultural land etc. There's already a lot of pressure on them with the current level of population. I don't know about you, but if the average world citizen would consume like the average American, the planet would run out of things like some rare earth minerals fairly quickly. Pollution would also be a far bigger issue.
> The problem is people who have negative value. This is just introducing an us vs them mentality. There are no bad people, everyone is just trying to survive and get their needs met, through whatever means they have at their disposal. The people you say have negative value (for you) are exactly the people that were born in less privileged circumstances.
> A hack might be only letting people who want children and want to take care of children have kids ... There are so many ethical problems with this paragraph, that I won't even go into that.
And besides, the current political and economical system is simply not suited for such the current level of population we have. Wealth is getting concentrated more and more at the top of the pyramid, and the fat bottom of the pyramid is just becoming worse and worse a place to live in.
Resources on this Earth are limited. Things like space/real estate/ agricultural land etc. There's already a lot of pressure on them with the current level of population. I don't know about you, but if the average world citizen would consume like the average American, the planet would run out of things like some rare earth minerals fairly quickly. Pollution would also be a far bigger issue.
> The problem is people who have negative value. This is just introducing an us vs them mentality. There are no bad people, everyone is just trying to survive and get their needs met, through whatever means they have at their disposal. The people you say have negative value (for you) are exactly the people that were born in less privileged circumstances.
> A hack might be only letting people who want children and want to take care of children have kids ... There are so many ethical problems with this paragraph, that I won't even go into that.
And besides, the current political and economical system is simply not suited for such the current level of population we have. Wealth is getting concentrated more and more at the top of the pyramid, and the fat bottom of the pyramid is just becoming worse and worse a place to live in.
So simple, and yet so powerful. You're right. This is going to be a big thing.
Decentralized peer to peer internet, powered by a network of cell phones and other devices. For this to work it likely needs to use middle-out compression.
Nice.
The internet is already decentralized and cell carriers don’t want consumers with control over the modems (for many reasons including avoiding this particular scenario.)
Look at what’s happened with the TV whitespace ISPs. There’s just no way unless something radical happens with the FCC.
Look at what’s happened with the TV whitespace ISPs. There’s just no way unless something radical happens with the FCC.
I think there is a big shift toward “self-improvement” tech. The first big wave has been nootropics, although the hype around that stuff has subsided it seems. There are researchers still actively looking at ways to improve standard bearers such as modafinil.
A second push toward wearable devices is probably coming. I think Snapchat’s glasses probably cracked some of the stigma around that, at least for younger millennials. We won’t see the same type of stigma that Google Glass had, especially once Apple gets in the game. This will necessitate new conversations around privacy in the public space, although this time around the conversation will be led by people who might not necessarily have grown up expecting that luxury anyway.
Another big movement is Neuralink and similar physical brain enhancement. The degree to which these could change an individual’s lived experience is probably hard to imagine. I somewhat expect something like having a Dropbox-memory with Wikipedia-levels of factual knowledge. The ability to synthesize and digest this amount of data will become the new ground on which individuals differentiate themselves. Knowledge and social management applications will become essential, ie things similar to Roam or CRM-style apps for your social life.
I am curious about how the near future will impact pop culture. Maybe our tech will be able to sense what music we want to listen to in the moment? Maybe algorithms will start proactively incorporating the preferences of groups of people, instead of individuals, to make suggestions? Will music and film become shorter to fit into tinier and tinier slices of attention?
For what it’s worth, futurism is one of my passions. I predicted services like Stadia 6 years ago. I’m still a little salty about how badly it has turned out...
A second push toward wearable devices is probably coming. I think Snapchat’s glasses probably cracked some of the stigma around that, at least for younger millennials. We won’t see the same type of stigma that Google Glass had, especially once Apple gets in the game. This will necessitate new conversations around privacy in the public space, although this time around the conversation will be led by people who might not necessarily have grown up expecting that luxury anyway.
Another big movement is Neuralink and similar physical brain enhancement. The degree to which these could change an individual’s lived experience is probably hard to imagine. I somewhat expect something like having a Dropbox-memory with Wikipedia-levels of factual knowledge. The ability to synthesize and digest this amount of data will become the new ground on which individuals differentiate themselves. Knowledge and social management applications will become essential, ie things similar to Roam or CRM-style apps for your social life.
I am curious about how the near future will impact pop culture. Maybe our tech will be able to sense what music we want to listen to in the moment? Maybe algorithms will start proactively incorporating the preferences of groups of people, instead of individuals, to make suggestions? Will music and film become shorter to fit into tinier and tinier slices of attention?
For what it’s worth, futurism is one of my passions. I predicted services like Stadia 6 years ago. I’m still a little salty about how badly it has turned out...
Augmented Reality, which is really the merging of our physical and digital worlds
Bioengineering / Genetics, this will probably change the way we make many materials in addition to health applications. Nano materials are pretty interesting too
Something to deal with a hyper-connected world and all the issues therein. This is probably about rule making. "Rules for a Flat World" is a good read on how humans have made and used rules and laws.
I hope for something in the social network space akin to the FHIR standard in healthcare in US. This could enable the separation of the network from it's presentation and thus (fingers crossed) encourage competition.
Pessimistically, the second cold war
Bioengineering / Genetics, this will probably change the way we make many materials in addition to health applications. Nano materials are pretty interesting too
Something to deal with a hyper-connected world and all the issues therein. This is probably about rule making. "Rules for a Flat World" is a good read on how humans have made and used rules and laws.
I hope for something in the social network space akin to the FHIR standard in healthcare in US. This could enable the separation of the network from it's presentation and thus (fingers crossed) encourage competition.
Pessimistically, the second cold war
This is likely a relevant topic too https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23956961
Smart glasses.
Apple is rumoured to be announcing their version of the Google Glass some time this year. Their recent efforts around augmented reality seems to confirm that. If the rumour is true, and if it succeeds, then it will be interesting times for wearable tech.
Apple is rumoured to be announcing their version of the Google Glass some time this year. Their recent efforts around augmented reality seems to confirm that. If the rumour is true, and if it succeeds, then it will be interesting times for wearable tech.
Can't wait to see what they bring out. I loved HoloLens, but they aren't practical for long duration use or in cost.
PCoIP. Zero clients. Workflows for teams in virtual environments. It's analogous to netflix, zoom, and stadia. But for distributed remote-first enterprises.
Imagine a big budget Hollywood movie production, shooting in locations around the world, with post-production all working from a single data source, editing in a single multiplexed workstation.
Imagine a big budget Hollywood movie production, shooting in locations around the world, with post-production all working from a single data source, editing in a single multiplexed workstation.
Microrobots. Each robot the size of a grain of salt; disposable (and hence, cheap). They'll be able to: clean your teeth (goodbye toothbrush), cut your hair (you'll have exactly the haircut you want), cut your nails, shave your beard. Clean your face, your ears.
Probably more usages, but all of them related to human hygiene. I just can't imagine a future with: toiler papers, toothbrushes, nail clippers, hair scissors...
Probably more usages, but all of them related to human hygiene. I just can't imagine a future with: toiler papers, toothbrushes, nail clippers, hair scissors...
We will be the Borg!
This is the one I couldn't remember for my own comment, actually robotics generally, was thinking farms, self driving, android companions... tiny bots is another good call. I think there will be a lot more uses outside of humans, probably first for safety reasons.
This is the one I couldn't remember for my own comment, actually robotics generally, was thinking farms, self driving, android companions... tiny bots is another good call. I think there will be a lot more uses outside of humans, probably first for safety reasons.
Even better: they’re in your bloodstream, fighting disease. Say there’s some cancer, they’ll destroy it before you even think about it. If there’s plaque in your arteries they’d be able to remove it, they could repair damage from injuries, etc.
Git for genes.
Revert, bisect, blame, cherry-pick, merge, rebase, commit. On genes.
Of course, there could be porcelain on that plumbing. You could point at a trait, like a tumor, and revert it. Remission will last a second or so.
CI/CD for humans, with integration tests and unit tests updated glibally. If there's mutation and we know that mutation isn't good, it doesn't get merged.
Revert, bisect, blame, cherry-pick, merge, rebase, commit. On genes.
Of course, there could be porcelain on that plumbing. You could point at a trait, like a tumor, and revert it. Remission will last a second or so.
CI/CD for humans, with integration tests and unit tests updated glibally. If there's mutation and we know that mutation isn't good, it doesn't get merged.
I feel like this might not be the next big thing, but it might happen in the next generation.
A free speech service that is serverless and unable to be shut down. That will truly give power to individual people.
> A free speech service that is serverless and unable to be shut down. That will truly give power to individual people.
When speech is free, speech becomes worthless. Worthy things cost.
When speech is free, speech becomes worthless. Worthy things cost.
What kind of power are you hoping to gain? Power to say anything you want, or power to prevent abuse. I don't think you can have both.
I appreciate your willingness to reason carefully about this problem. I may not understand your point, so please walk me through it, if you have the time and energy to teach a young man. At the very least, would you agree it is possible to have a context where anyone can say what they want (perhaps something we all infrastructurally support and protect) while also having other contexts in which each user controls who their moderators and search/feed signalers will be? Isn't it worthwhile to work for both?
Anyone can say anything they want? What if I want to say what your address is and when you are home, and which of your doors is easiest to force open? Even if you had the ability to hide this content from yourself, wouldn't you prefer to hide it from those who would like to use it to harm you?
Everyone wants to avoid censorship until their sister's revenge porn hits the decentralized web.
Before I respond any further, I'd like to offer you the chance to speak with me more privately. HMU, https://philosopher.life.
The history of "total freedom" free speech services show that it will never work. Total anarchy doesn't give you freedom.
A paid listening service that I control that stops the harassment, electronic warfare and spamming and propaganda. My phone rings off the hook with people who want to rip me off or hurt me or my community.
That cancels the guy who staged riots at small schools, got sleepwalking boomers who never heard him speak think that he had something to say, staged riots at big schools, then tried to stage a riot at CPAC and got canceled by conservatives because he was planning to stage a riot there.
Many people today think "free speech" means having the right to destroy the fire alarm in a burning theater, to tell people there is no fire, to force people back into their seats. Let's make them go away, as well as the people who spam the political agenda with crap (e.g. rich people are hurting so bad out here man i know you cut our taxes five minutes ago but we need a tax cut again right here and now...)
That will truly give power to individuals.
That cancels the guy who staged riots at small schools, got sleepwalking boomers who never heard him speak think that he had something to say, staged riots at big schools, then tried to stage a riot at CPAC and got canceled by conservatives because he was planning to stage a riot there.
Many people today think "free speech" means having the right to destroy the fire alarm in a burning theater, to tell people there is no fire, to force people back into their seats. Let's make them go away, as well as the people who spam the political agenda with crap (e.g. rich people are hurting so bad out here man i know you cut our taxes five minutes ago but we need a tax cut again right here and now...)
That will truly give power to individuals.
Both of you want freedom - to speak and to choose what to hear, so you're more alike than one might think :)
Smart(er) Cities - publicly available APIs for each city providing real-time access to what's happening where, from traffic numbers to park occupancy, requests for planning permission to refuse collection times for the area, cities produce tons of data and harnessing it would be incredible.
Cryptocurrency might still have its day.
[deleted]
Biotech (gene therapy).
Physical alteration of your finger prints instead of tattoos.
Could be used for commercial gain?
I'm surprised nobody has said quantum computing.
QC seems more like the next, next, next big thing. We've only just got a POC for quantum supremacy. It'll be a while until QC outperforms classical in any practical problem, and longer until it becomes useful enough to get big.
Yeah, I guess I was looking at the biggest next thing. Many of the other comments seem like they won't transform our lives or that they are already here but just need to grow more.
AI + science leading to acceleration of discoveries
Flying cars. It’s always flying cars.
[deleted]
OnlyFans
XgeneCloud: writing APIs will never be simpler.
With just one command you can generate REST/Graphql on 5 different types of databases instantly.
https://github.com/xgenecloud/xgenecloud/
Has GUI for dB design and API debugging.
And APIs generated can be deployed as even AWS lambda function too.
And this is our MVP :)
Disclaimer: I'm the founder.
With just one command you can generate REST/Graphql on 5 different types of databases instantly.
https://github.com/xgenecloud/xgenecloud/
Has GUI for dB design and API debugging.
And APIs generated can be deployed as even AWS lambda function too.
And this is our MVP :)
Disclaimer: I'm the founder.
since you’re here: I didn’t find anything about pricing, what’s your model?
I would like to hear your opinion about the potential next big thing(s).