Why did technology develop at a faster pace during the 1930s than the 20s? Shouldn't the depression have made the opposite true? If you look at trains, planes, and cars from the beginning and end of both decades much more progress seems to have been made in the 30s.
Industrial Revolution
>>1417446
To compare to the pic here's an airliner from the 1920s. The DC-3 looks like something you could see flying to this day, this plane, not so much
>>1417454
what?
>>1417475
You're welcome
>>1417446
WW2
>>1417475
>. The DC-3 looks like something you could see flying to this day
It's funny that you mention that because it's one of the few, if not the only, pre-WWII planes still in commercial use.
>>1417475
that thing looks like the glued wings on the side of a bus
Technology is improving faster then ever.
Take a look at storage capacity of computers for example.
Or data writing speed.
Just because planes are kinda stalling right now does not mean technology stopped advancing.
It just means that for now the planes we have are the best we can come up with.
>>1420050
>Technology is improving faster then ever.
That is demonstrably false.
Compare the change in technology between the years 1900 and 1960, and between the years 1960 and today.
>>1417446
you gotta start small, the 10s and 20s were ares of experimentation and introspection. Its no wonder modern art was created at about this time. The whole damn world was spurred into rapid industrialization after ww1, this lead to all kinds of consumer goods like radios and basic electronics to be available for the first time; once you stop needing to build so many weapons of war you can refocus back on consumer goods. Basically the 30s were picking the stuff that worked in the 20s and elaborating on it.
Also for an example of things they threw out. They genuinely thought that Armored trains would be the evolution of tanks because they were faster and the lines already existed for them. Kinda like having a wall of guns you could move around on the rails. The obvious flaw is that
>broken rails
>armored train cant go anywhere
sorry for the clusterfuck of a answer
pic is futurist art of guys on an armored train, search futurist dinners if you want to have a laugh
>>1420050
Eh, bad example. Progress in computing is actually slowing down because it's getting harder and harder. For instance, HDD capacity has barely gone up in the past 5 years, and the same goes for CPU frequency and IPC. There have been improvements to be sure, but nothing like what we got between, say, 1995 and 2000.
>>1420062
*because it's getting harder and harder to shrink the transistors
>>1420065
Isnt it that if the two wires get so close to eachother the electrons teleport on a supersmall scale?
t. computer illiterate
>>1420130
Quantum tunnelling is part of the issue, yes. But it's also because we're using manufacturing methods originally designed for gate widths about 100 times bigger than the current designs and when you're trying to create details 14nm wide with visible light(which has wavelength in excess of 400nm), well, you're bound to have problems. Using extreme-ultraviolet spectrum instead has some promise, but it's not ready for production yet - manipulating photons with wavelength that small is tricky.
>>1420308
It seems like there is only so much extra space we can squeeze out of the size of transistors. Maybe in like, 30 years, computers would reach the physical limit of their complexity. Anything further would just plateau off from there
>>1417446
Technological development follows an s-curve. Aircraft development was no different in that regard.
>>1420325
It almost certainly won't take 30 years. Silicon atoms have radius of about .2nm. We're less than two orders of magnitude from that. So there simply isn't all that much room for improvement for conventional computing using silicon. We'll probably be stuck on ~5nm lithography until something revolutionary comes along, simply because past that point quantum tunnelling and other spooky issues stemming from QED become insurmountable issues. Sure, we can push the limits for a bit by switching to the more exotic forms of carbon like graphite, and we can use quantum computing for some things(not that it's very beneficial for any everyday use other than cryptography), but unless/until something revolutionary comes along, we'll be stuck on something not all that much better than what we already have.
>>1420376
I am going to go out on a limb to say that unless quantum computers, etc work. Computers if the future probably wont be much more powerful than now. It wont be like comparing a commodore 64 to a modern pc. It would be more like comparing a computer from 2003 to 2013. The 2003 pc could still function somewhat, it just would lack the power to do anything intense
>>1420050
Nah, Technology hasn't innovated for about 20 years. We had touch screen iphone tier shit 20 years ago. It just gets much more affordable. There hasn't been any great new inventions of discoveries, just cheaper parts.
>>1420438
The whole POINT is making shit cheaper so you can make better shit
>>1420438
Twenty years ago it would've taken a supercomputer to reach the computing capability of an iPhone. And that's not even taking into account innovations such as SSDs.
>>1420051
>Compare the change in technology between the years 1900 and 1960, and between the years 1960 and today.
It depends how you look at it.
Even in 2005 so pretty recently, nobody would believe that you can track important events without the help of journalist. Yesterday I've watched as the coup in Turkey unfolds on social media and on the TV. TV and journalists were 30 minutes to hour behind random people spewing shit on the internet. In 1960 people wouldn't even understand what I am saying now.
The information age stuff really, really changed the world more than basically everything before and after. People seem to not realise it because we've got used to it so much that we don't even realise that. However, take history for an example. To this day I have like 20 kilos of binders filled with certain magazine about WW2 history. It's accurate, well written and very detailed, however, almost as accurate, well written and detailed information can be found in fucking wikipedia article and at the same time I can check on satellite map how did the frontline looked like, without bothering myself with maps and other stuff. I can see the way terrain, rivers etc. look like better than in any map anyway which certainly helps with understanding the thing I read.
And the progress in material engineering/science isn't even funny anymore. There was a time when aluminium was more expensive than good steel. Today aluminium is cheaper than even shit steel. Not to mention the progress in composites, semiconductors and myriad of other stuff. This is really, really overlooked thing.
In engineering itself, due to progress in computing we're able to make stuff more effectively, with lesser tolerances and using less resources(although it also means that modern products will wear down faster than older ones - case in point - cars). Things like planned obsolescence, while vile, weren't possible in 1900 and only started being somewhat economical in maybe 1970's.
>>1420428
>unless quantum computers, etc work.
They already do.
>>1420461
but where is the new technology, its only better
>>1420474
SSDs are a new technology.
>>1420479
they were knocking about in the 80s
>>1420474
I think that people feel like technology isn't advancing as fast because the industrial revolution changed almost fucking everything. Technology is still advancing just as fast, but we haven't hit that mark where almost every aspect of life is vastly changed yet.
If we were to look back after, say, the invention of easily produced intelligent robots and AI, we would likely see differently.
>>1420501
What i mean is while my PC might blow even the best from 20 years ago completely out of the water, its still fundamentally a computer using the same technology.
But imagine being born in 1880 and dying in 1980. You've gone from steam power and carts to jets and walking on the moon. I dont know how their brains didnt explode.
>>1420631
HDD random read/write is fucking laughable compared to even crappy, 2013-tier SSDs.
>>1420050
Why are you mentioning now? I'm OP and I clearly only mentioned the 1920s and 1930s...
>>1420051
Big simple machines are easier to make than small complicated ones.
>>1420474
Where is the new technology in the 1930s?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1930s#Technology
>>1421524
Births
>empty
Deaths
>empty
>>1417446
>Why did technology develop at a faster pace during the 1930s than the 20s?
Do you have any proof of that being the case?
