back
7 comments
Not to be overly negative, but:

- the images add nothing to the post, they're just taking up space

- the layout, especially the font on the headings, looks pretty gross (Chrome on Android Jellybean)

- the writing quality isn't great; 'utopic' stuck out to me as strange (versus 'utopian'), there were other cases of overwrought wording or outright weird grammar

- the premise is flawed: yes, the last half of the 20th century vastly oversold scientific progress based on what they saw as an ever-increasing rate of return on research. In reality, we have some pretty amazing computer technology, but we haven't cracked hoverboards yet. This doesn't mean we lack focus, nor that scientific progress is slowing down. It just means making something up doesn't make it physically possible, or even likely within an arbitrary timeframe.

Thanks for your feedback

- There are 7 images in a 12k character article. One header image. Two are diagrams that shall explain what i am talking about. Another one shows RK's extrapolation. And two show stereotypes of what i speak about. I am not sure if it is entirely fair to say they "add nothing to the post"

- The layout is broken. It's hacked together template. I didn't have the time to fix it yet. I am as-we-speak trying to redesign the whole page. Hopefully ship-able tomorrow.

- I am non-native english speaker. Thus i have a sometimes weird grammar. I used get my articles to copy-editing. I stopped doing that. Maybe i will go back to that. Thanks for the hint.

- I agree with your point of view. I wanted to present others as well in this article. I personally don't believe in the "Illusion of Progress" by Kasparow.

Again, thanks for your feedback

- The relevance of the images does improve as you read more of the article. You did a good job of front-loading the interesting hoverboard image, which drew me in, but the stock photo of the guy with the mohawk stuck out as particularly weird and distracting.

- I realize now that you didn't submit this yourself, and you likely weren't expecting this level of traffic right now. I look forward to seeing the new site.

- Proof-reading is always good. God knows I make a ton of mistakes, and I can't even speak a second language.

Sorry if I came across as overly negative, congrats on hitting the front page :)

- That's not a stockphoto that a scientist at NASA (i should have maybe pointed it out)

- The new site is now up - let me know what you think: http://klinger.io/

- There is never only "negative" or "positive". But there is always "taking time to give feedback". So thanks for that!

> "We lost ourselves in incremental improvements and wars of efficiencies"

If blogs existed when the steam engine was created, I'm sure someone would be posting an article about how the state of the Steam Engine has stagnated and we are simply optimizing.

Arguably, this always happens, because low hanging fruit is so easy to grab. It's easy to have big, grand visions when you are discovering ground-breaking science every single month.

I'm from a biology background, so pharmaceuticals are a great example. Penicillin was huge and thought to solve everything. The second round of penicillin derivatives were equally magical. Then we started to see resistant strains of bacteria and had to start tweaking the magic formula, fighting for small improvements in efficiency.

The same happened to all major drug categories. We are in an era where most major small molecules have already been discovered, tweaked and optimized. We will continue to tweak until the next big thing comes along, and then it will start all over again.

Agree. Innovation comes in S curves.

That's what a lot of people criticize about Kasparow's concept.

Infinite Jest: The Year of the Depends Adult Undergrament