I've been an Eclipse guy since college (12 years ago) and haven't seen any need to change. I used vim once for a small Ruby project (couple of days) and came away thinking "I don't see how, even with years of practice of keystrokes, etc, someone can be more productive in vim than a modern editor." And went right back to Eclipse.
Your vision of the future assumes that folks will remain complacent about how much they trust their doctors, health insurance companies, medical device companies and hospitals with their minute-to-minute activity.
To rule out root causes. If the data showed increases and serotonin, decreases in stress hormones and improved sleep quality and the patient still replies "bad" to the question "How do you feel?" Then obviously a serotonin imbalance is not the problem (which is all SSRIs are designed to do).
If the patient still feels bad and the data shows no serotonin change, then the doctor can conclude that maybe serotonin is still the problem, but Zoloft isn't the right drug to fix it (or the dosage was wrong).
In other words, more data = better ability to get a real answer.
It is absolutely crazy to think about how NASA got to the moon in freakin' 1969. Ten years ago, we didn't have FB, YouTube, widespread WiFi, flatscreen TVs, smartphones, LTE... That we landed a spaceship on the moon 4.5 times longer ago (45 years) when the state of the art was a photocopy machine is truly mindblowing.
> I find Evans' analysis of mobile a bit hyperbolic.
Spot on. I've been a follower of his for some time now and while he's obviously smart an insightful, he does sometimes veer into hyperbole bordering on know-it-all snark. There's nothing wrong with it, per se, other than that the audience might not take it as seriously as an argument made more rationally.
I wonder to what degree public perception of a company's brand (think HP, Microsoft, Ebay vs Google, Apple) helps or hinders their ability to get a product off the ground. It reminds me of the old Shakespearean "What's in a name?" question.
One would like to believe that the product, if good enough, will always win out, but that's probably not the case, especially if it relies on an ecosystem to develop around it to be fully viable.
If brand quality matters severely, then an interesting question is whether or not startups have an advantage against large corps with bad reputations. Is it better to be StartuppyMcstartup nobody's ever heard of or Microsoft?
One reason AIDS has been so successful as a pathogen is that it takes a long time to kill the host. The infection has plenty of time to spread.
Ebola, on the other hand, never spreads very far because it kills so quickly, as described above.
I wonder if we'll see a "slow-kill" social service emerge in the next few years; one that slows your roll, prevents you from blitzing through the experience all at once.
When we all first joined Facebook, we were hit with an exciting torrent of old friends we'd lost touch with, especially old hookups/romances that suddenly became possible again. This was like a pathogen entering a fresh population of potential hosts.
Then, over the past 6 years, we explored all of those new possible relationships and took them to their conclusion. But now there's nothing left; like the pathogen killing off all its hosts and having nowhere else to go.
In order to survive, the population has to create new hosts faster than they're being killed i.e. Facebook would have to generate new connections for us at a faster rate than we can explore them. I don't think it comes anywhere close.
In this sense, it definitely has biological underpinnings.
I was wondering about this myself. I've been developing a Chrome extension off/on for the past year and did moderate reading into Chrome, Chromium and how user data is handled. Seemed ok to me. Wireshark doesn't show anything particularly alarming, either. Can anyone else confirm/deny?