×
all 69 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]Kuiperdolin 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Wikipedia et al.

​

I've known the last days when findinq very basic, uncontroversial facts (what's the name of that actor, what's the boiling point of that substance, did historical event X happen before or after event Y) meant a trip to the library, a search for the right reference book, and trudging through tiny-lettered indexes and tables. Having it all at your fingertips is/was a gamechanger. (full disclosure, I was a big wikipedia skeptic back in the day, happy to eat crow on that one).

[–]gwern 19 points20 points  (5 children)

I made a list a while ago: https://gwern.net/Notes#ordinary-life-improvements (It's harder to make such a list than it looks! Computers are such a big & compelling area that it's difficult to think of others which aren't obviously computer-related, despite the many such improvements. The nature of many of these is that they're hard to notice.)

[–]Felz 0 points1 point  (2 children)

For your coffee subsection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_cup_sleeve

[–]gwern 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Is that really much of an improvement over double-cupping or just having thicker cups or thicker middles?

[–]Felz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A double-cup would need twice as many cups, and I doubt a coffee shop would give you those by default, while they do slip on coffee sleeves without prompting.

A thicker middle would have stacking and manufacturing concerns. It also just wouldn't be as good; coffee sleeves are corrugated and thus better insulated. A thicker middle would also be wasteful when serving cold or room temperature drinks.

Maybe only important to the coffee shop, but they can stick a colorful logo on the sleeve and use a generic foam cup. I'd imagine that makes logistics easier.

[–]slapdashbr 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Cars, especially "economy" cars, have gotten phenomenally better.

[–]gwern 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Already in the list. :)

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]slapdashbr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    When I was 3 or so my family moved from California to Ohio. My mom would ask for discounts on avocados at the local supermarket because "these are starting to go soft" lol

    [–]337850ss6 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    This. Food is much better, and that is why we are all so fat. Doritos were a slightly flavored corn chip, to nacho cheese flavor to highly dusted and saltier chips. Doritos are awesome but make people fat.

    [–]CPlusPlusDeveloper 8 points9 points  (1 child)

    Definitely not the biggest improvement, but maybe the least appreciated. Weather forecasting has improved substantially.

    Arguably this may be the most clear-cut way that Wall Street has improved the life of the ordinary man. Much of the improvement in meteorology was subsidized by energy and commodities traders who were willing to pay huge subscription fees to get even a marginal leg up in a zero-sum arms race.

    [–]ArkyBeagle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    A lot of it was also just Moore's Law expressed in radar systems. The number and variety of things on the display now are substantial, at least in the short-term for severe weather. They can identify specific features that are strongly correlated with Bad Weather Things.

    [–]AshLaelGeorgist Market Monetarist Distributist 19 points20 points  (5 children)

    Travel costs have plummeted.

    [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (4 children)

    Oh boy, this is a hard one to call either a good or bad thing in my opinion. It's done a lot of good to help people, but it's also turned dozens of cities from practical places into psuedo-Disneylands.

    [–]dnkndntsThestral patronus 4 points5 points  (3 children)

    Airline travel is also a major source of carbon emissions.

    [–]LineartsWashington, DC 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    Hmm, true cumulatively, but isn't it much more efficient than cars if you compare carbon per passenger mile? And plane voyages often substitute for road trips.

    [–]dnkndntsThestral patronus 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    I don't think so, but even if it were, as the comment I was replying to noted, low travel prices have drastically increased the amount of travel that takes place. And outside the US, car travel isn't necessarily the primary alternative to plane travel: trains are common in much of Europe and parts of Asia, and perform better than planes and cars in terms of emissions.

    [–]mcgruntman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    IIRC plane emissions (assuming a full plane!) are ballpark-equivalent to driving a car the same distance with 1-3 people in it, number depending on your car's efficiency.

    If you can fill your car with people it is probably more efficient than flying. If you drive alone it is probably less efficient than flying.

    [–]dnkndntsThestral patronus 9 points10 points  (0 children)

    Research is much more accessible than it used to be. Search indexing and hyperlinking online is several orders of magnitude faster than digging through old editions of journals in the library.

    [–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (25 children)

    The obvious go-to is medical care, but most people 30 years ago didn't interact with that much until they die, and it's also become cripplingly expensive.

    Smartphone have been great for communication, travel, etc. They're also increasingly percieved as causing a large deal of social harm.

    Social media: Good for the older folk (50+), probably bad for younger folk.

    Smoking: Smoking is down. There's nothing good about smoking. Yes, vapes are taking a lot of territory but AFAIK they're not 1% as bad for you as cigarettes. Presumptive risks rather than known ones.

    Internet music and porn: Yeah, this has been pretty great.

    [–]_hephaestusComputer/Neuroscience turned Sellout 11 points12 points  (1 child)

    They're also increasingly percieved as causing a large deal of social harm.

    Do you believe that perception is justified? "This is nice" doesn't get ad revenue as much as "new thing is ruining our social lives". Satisfaction doesn't sell. Would you give up your phone if everyone else did? We've taken modern technology for granted but sometimes it's good to take a step back and imagine what someone in 1990 would think about a future where everyone walked around with a metal slab that can tell them Abe Lincoln's birthday if asked nicely. Maybe I'm a bit biased, but I consider phones about as conducive to social harm as the telegram.

    You suggest that social media might be bad for younger folk, but we're communicating on one of the biggest social networks. Even if you're going discount reddit as one due to the lack of personal information, I still think that element of the Internet goes beyond pretty great.

    Another point for everyone is that violent crime has gone down significantly since the 1990s. A lot of things are looking up.

    [–]zebrafoxtrotsierra 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Another point for everyone is that violent crime has gone down significantly since the 1990s. A lot of things are looking up.

    I think the original point was that the only positive news comes from countries outside North America. Sure violent crime is down, but it's not as attention-grabbing of a headline as "Every Single Thing Is Terrible: A Listicle"

    That's the harm of media, and while the internet is for sure great for linking the like-minded, it also gives a voice to everyone - not just the people we want to hear from. That's the harm of social media. I know you already know this but it seems important to differentiate.

    [–]penpractice 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    There's nothing good about smoking

    It's a cognitive-enhancer, which is why so many creative folks throughout history have smoked. But yes, it comes with dire side effects.

    [–]ArkyBeagle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    There's nothing good about smoking.

    I'd really have expected this to have made a more measurable difference than it has. The usual 40 year latency for disorders related to smoking really makes it much harder to say one way or the other.

    [–]Rogermcfarley -3 points-2 points  (20 children)

    Porn is intensely damaging in our society. Governments have been slow to react, in fact most people don't realise how many children watch porn and how many are co-erced in to performing acts to each other and strangers in the Internet. Much much more needs to be done, however the damage is done. I've been involved in taking down these sites.

    The scale of the problem is horrific. Most parents just don't realise what is happening out there. I'm an anti porn campaigner. It could be your child affected by this. I've been involved in taking down these sites. The BBC have some articles on this which only scrape the surface of the problem. It's one of the biggest scandals in history that we haven't protected our children from this menace of society. Porn gives an unrealistic view of sexual behaviour, also for many 7 or 8 year olds or younger it's their first education on sex! Think about that and take that in. That's our society today.

    As for adults porn can often be damaging for them too >

    https://www.yourbrainonporn.com

    [–]russianpotato 6 points7 points  (19 children)

    You have some strange ideas, do You have any data to back this up? I've only seen anti-porn campaigners on right wing talk shows and fringe heath debates. Oh and an off brand tedX once. They tend towards external locus of control and magical thinking.

    [–]skiff151 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    The anti-porn argument he's linked to can be essentially boiled down to: "Porn is a superstimuli and is therefore likely to create addiction and dopamine downregulation, with all the negative effects that entails" and "watching porn reduces quality of sex life for a non-trivial amount of people" both of which have a very plausible method of action and some good correlatonal data on their side from what I remember.

    [–]russianpotato 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Well if you can't control yourself then sure porn or drugs or (insert vice here) is a problem for you. But for most people it isn't, so maybe look within instead of trying to ban things and go all prohibitionist; which has been proven time and time again to cause more problems than it solves.

    [–]skiff151 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I've argued with you before and you got banned. You are a troll and I'm not falling for it.

    [–]seshfan2 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    If you click the link, you can see the research page which has links to approximately 41 neuroscience based studies, 21 recent literature reviews, 30 studies with pornography users reporting signs of addiction, 25 studies debunking the claim that porn addicts just have higher sex drive, 30 studies linking porn use / porn addiction to sexual problems, 60+ studies linking porn use to lower sexual and relationship satisfaction, 60+ studies linking porn use to poorer mental-emotional health & poorer cognitive outcomes, and 25 studies demonstrating porn use causing negative outcomes and symptoms.

    [–]russianpotato 2 points3 points  (2 children)

    Yourbrainonporn was the tedX guy I think. Like anything else, if it is causing you problems in your personal life, stop it. But let people do what they want. Prohibition of any "vice" has never done more good than harm.

    [–]Rogermcfarley 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    I'm not advocating banning porn. I'm saying don't let minors have access to it.

    [–]dazzilingmegafauna 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    What does that look like in practice, child-proof capchas?

    [–]Rogermcfarley 0 points1 point  (11 children)

    I'm anti porn in terms of minors seeing it. Currently they aren't protected at all, it's something that most people don't realise the extent of the damage it's already caused. It's mind boggling, the sites we've taken down, truly horrendous.

    [–]russianpotato 2 points3 points  (10 children)

    Ah yes, the reason for most moral panics in history. "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

    [–]NatalyaRostovaI'm actually a guy -- not LARPing as a Russian girl. 4 points5 points  (7 children)

    Just because thinking of the children is often correlated with contrived arguments, doesn't mean thinking of the children means an argument is contrived.

    Children are different, gotta think about them sometimes.

    [–]russianpotato 2 points3 points  (6 children)

    Have any examples where someone really concerned about the maintaining the "purity and innocence" of children wasn't some kind of weird power grab by some kind of slightly or very repugnant group? banning sex ed, DARE, christian right, priests,reefer madness, kkk, satanic panic, book burning soccer moms etc...

    [–]NatalyaRostovaI'm actually a guy -- not LARPing as a Russian girl. 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    Is your claim truly that people concerned about the purity of children are, in every case, doing some weird power grab?

    Let's see... One thing I can think of is people concerned over Catholic child sex abuse. The activists in those cases seem to be concerned over the innocence of children being sexually assaulted. Or perhaps sex trafficking of minors.

    [–]russianpotato 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    That is your takeaway? The Catholic church is concerned with "chastity and purity". Boston globe investigators are concerned with the truth and stopping child abuse. Not moral panic about the innocence of children.

    Which one sounds more like an anti-porn crusader?

    [–]skiff151 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    People who are against paedophiles?

    [–]russianpotato 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    He started off just railing against porn. Then responded with "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!", when I asked why anyone cares what an adult does with their free time. Everyone is against pedophiles, what are you talking about?

    [–]skiff151 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Q: Have any examples where someone really concerned about the maintaining the "purity and innocence" of children wasn't some kind of weird power grab by some kind of slightly or very repugnant group?

    A: People who are against paedophiles

    [–]Rogermcfarley 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    You're being obtuse. I'm not about restricting choice for adults. I'm saying that governments/society have failed the next generation. It's simple really do you believe preteens should have access to porn? If you don't, do you realise the scale of this problem and the reality is most of these children have access. Not everyone of them will see it, but it's very easy for them. Their minds skewed by the false depictions of sex and many acting out sexual acts on social media platforms to their friends and strangers. This is fact. So it's not a moral crusade, people don't like to hear these horrible facts. Which then means nothing gets done about it.

    [–]russianpotato -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    I don't think they should, and the fact that you're implying I do is just another step in the moral panic playbook. How would you go about implementing more "safety"?. I'm not going to get dragged down into your weird rabbit hole. There are bad people in the world, fewer every year. I mean shit dude, like a quarter of London was prostitutes 200 years ago.

    [–]MarketsAreCool 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    Entertainment. You can get access to virtually all films, TV shows, books, and video games available in the 1980s, plus all the ones we've created since then. And these are available for relatively small amounts of money, streamed directly to your home TV, computer, or downloaded on your kindle/iPad.

    Taking TV shows specifically, television units have plummeted in cost while getting larger and cheaper. Subscription services are highly competitive and really good deals. You can spend the equivalent of single restaurant entree and get enough entertainment to last you a month from a streaming service like HBO or Netflix. Most people seem to have access to a couple of these services, but if you couldn't afford that, you could easily switch between the various services and never run out of things to watch. And the things you can watch! They are much better than TV shows of the past, with more specific genres to fit your specific interests. Some might argue that movies are becoming saturated with safe bet reboots and sequels, but original TV shows are constantly being made. So much so that I literally will never finish my current list of TV shows I'd like to see.

    And also a note for videogames. Innovative and original games (at least on PC) are really cheap. And interactive co-op games you can play with your real life friends in digital spaces is a really cool development. I can hang out with my friends who live thousands of miles away while playing on the same server in Minecraft or Factorio or Deep Rock Galactic, etc. It's a lot of fun and keeps our friendships intact despite distances.

    [–]CronoDAS 14 points15 points  (11 children)

    The good stuff on TV has gotten really, really good. You'd never see something like Game of Thrones, Mad Men, or The Good Place 20-30 years ago on commercial television. Even the network sitcoms and children's shows are more serialized and have ongoing story arcs. Creators are taking full advantage of the fact that a TV season lasts 12+ hours and telling stories that are too big to fit into a single movie. It's a huge change, and it's definitely a change for the better.

    [–]TURBODERP 4 points5 points  (3 children)

    I think 20 years ago is pushing it-the Wire came out....17 years ago? And that's fairly widely considered to be one of the greatest TV shows of all time (at least in America).

    Still, in general, the bar has absolutely been raised. I also think that there's been a huge broadening in terms of what's acceptable for TV to cover in terms of topics/themes (and this for all genres, from kids shows to R-rated stuff), which means a lot more creative freedom.

    [–]barkappara 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    The prestige television era is frequently considered to have begun with "The Sopranos", which premiered in January 1999 --- so almost exactly 20 years ago.

    [–]ArkyBeagle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    That's a specific thing - it' s really when did HBO invent long form original content. There was prestige TV before that - the adaptation of Alex Haley's "Roots" comes to mind, or the adaptation of several of James Michener's properties, "Shogun", "Lonesome Dove", etc.

    When you consider the long arc of how theater movies has worked out it's a somewhat richer story. The "Sopranos" of 1962 was "Lawrence of Arabia" and it was shown in theaters. Theatrical release had to become something other than what it was in 1962 for the HBO thing to make any sense.

    [–]ArkyBeagle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    It'd tie the advent of this back to the first season of Twin Peaks. That was 1991. Prior to Twin Peaks was rot like Dallas or Dynasty.

    [–]chasingthewiz 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    This is a very good point. I grew up in the 60's and 70's, and TV was really really bad back then.

    Of course 90 percent is still crap, but that 10% on top is really good.

    [–]CronoDAS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    There were a few good shows from that era, but far fewer. MASH still holds up really well.

    [–]russianpotato 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    You're putting The Good Place next to GOT and Mad Men? Um...

    [–]CronoDAS 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    It's similarly impossible for old TV - it's a show that blows up its premise over and over again. In the old days, Status Quo Is God was in full effect; studios made most of their money in syndication, and episodes had to be able to be aired in any order and not require any previous knowledge of the show.

    [–]russianpotato 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    Ah ok I see your point now. I was thinking in terms of narrative quality. You're right.

    [–]CronoDAS 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Well, I really love it, but I don't expect everyone else to.

    [–]russianpotato 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    It is just bad acting by Kristen Bell and poorly translated philosphy... unless you LOVE KB I don't see it.

    [–]un_passant 13 points14 points  (0 children)

    Dunno how average I am, but 20-30 years ago, I did not have access to libgen nor Sci-Hub and my life is now incommensurably better.

    [–]CronoDAS 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    Video games have exploded in technical quality and variety.

    [–]Loren_dc 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    Not a big one - the big ones have been said - but I was thinking about it the other day: when I was young, my neighborhood featured random piles of dog shit in every yard and sometimes on sidewalks. Stepping in shit and having to scrape it off your shoe was at least a monthly occurrence for kids and maybe a couple times a year for adults. We kept a scraper by the front door for that express purpose.

    Nowadays every time people let their dogs out they follow along behind with plastic bags and pick up the shit. We, back then, would have found the idea hilarious and disgusting, and would have never believed it could be successfully enforced. Having to occasionally pick gooshy shit out of your sneaker treads with something metal was just one of those annoyances of life that you shrugged and accepted.

    By the time I have grandkids they'll probably hear about this and react with shock and disbelief. I wonder what we shrug and accept today that will horrify future generations.

    ​

    ​

    [–]tfowler11 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    All sorts of technological improvements esp. in terms of computing, and communications. Better medical care. Overall economic growth (even if with the recessions in that time frame its not exactly been a boom time). Lower travel costs. The end of the cold war. (Yes there has been fighting and wars, and threats, but still not having to deal with the cold war and the negatives associated with it is big.)

    [–]Ashen_Light 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    The internet?

    [–]JoocyDeadlifts 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Pollution is a big one. No leaded gas, much less leaded paint, less smog, rivers aren't catching fire.

    (obviously, this is in the developed world.).

    [–]ArkyBeagle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    It's not one thing but rather a billion tiny things. When we went form the Sears/Montgomery Wards train-based retail paradigm to large stores based on truck logistics ( peaking some time around 1991-1996ish ) it seemed like an explosion of goods. So now throw in the Amazon way of doing the same thing. The actual differences are subtle.

    In 1991 you could still find terrestrial radio that was interesting. Cable TV was still interesting ( CNN came into its own in the Gulf War ). The monoculture still existed.

    When you go from a push model to a pull model for media consumption, it's all but impossible to make comparisons.

    I would say that during the intervening years, the Internet went from amatuer to professional. All the legions of slick-paper practitioners, made refugees, infested the funky flea-market sensibility of the Internet and now it's just another thing to turn off.

    [–]MacaqueOfTheNorth 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Free long distance calling.

    [–]shahofblah 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    helped ethnic and sexual minorities but not the average majority person that much.

    With homosexuals being ~10% of the population by some estimates and adding to it bisexuals and the curious, I think you get a pretty significant fraction of the population.

    The (social) freedoms to do certain things or not have to conform to some role helps everyone who has ever considered something outside of heteronormativity.

    I think there has been further decay of gender roles but(potential CW) some might not be too pleased with the direction gender politics has taken recently.

    [–]skiff151 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Those estimates are incorrect, it's like 3-4%

    [–]AlexCoventry. 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Smoking has been marginalized, at least in the US and Australia.

    [–]skiff151 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    You can easily steal nearly any book, movie, album and tv show and do free courses of watch free videos about any topic meaning nearly anyone in the western world has access to so much of the writings and art created by humanity. That's the biggest one for me.

    Travel is also so much cheaper and better.