It feels like every few months there’s a new tech “revolution” being hyped up as the future. Besides AI, what’s the most overhyped trend in tech right now? For me, it’s the constant buzz around the metaverse.
You must log in or register to comment.
Small modular reactors. You see these being proposed but so far they’re not being built.
The two nuclear developmemts I’m watching closest are the test molten salt reactor in Oak Ridge, TN and just recently heard about a new permit to build one for Abilene Christian University in Texas.
There have been others building a prototype or research reactor, but the M in SMR also stands for mass-produced and nobody got even close to that.
Molten salt sounds like a terrible design for modular, the whole problem is if it loses power it freezes solid, you’d want a huge one with tons of backup imho.
I’d imagine a tiny pebble bed or traveling wave, something fairly inert and safe.
Edit: I guess that’s the point, give someone a reactor, if they screw it up it safely freezes dead. Problem solved.
Carbon capture tech.
That one is still being promoted but in the end the CO2 is mainly used to get more oil out of wells.
I hate this one. People who have been following carbon capture for years know who is doing it sincerely and who is using it for greenwashing. Of course oil companies who say they’re doing carbon capture are doing greenwashing, no one should be surprised about that. Companies like Climeworks are doing real CCS.
I’d rather grown more Hemp
Agreed. Future carbon capture capabilities are used to justify current emissions.
Oh yeah, definitely this. The economics will probably never allow it to be deployed at a scale where it will make any sort of difference.
Instead, it is used as an excuse to not take any action on climate change which is actually realistic, albeit hard.
Cloud. Businesses went all in on cloud under this illusion of stable costs, but costs go up and contol/support have gone down, and I’m seeing businesses spin on-prem back up.
1000% this. Without giving away too much information, I work(ed) for a cloud provider (not one of the big ones, there are a surprising number of smaller ones in the field you’ve probably never heard of before). I quit this week to take a position in local government with some quaint, on-prem setup.
- We were always understaffed for what we promised. Two guys per shift and if one of us took vacation; oops, lol. No extra coverage, just deal.
- Everyone was super smart but we didn’t have time to work the tickets. Between crashes, outages, maintenance, and horrendous tickets that took way too much work to dig into, there was just never enough time. If you had a serious problem that took lengthy troubleshooting, good luck!
- We over-promised on support we could provide, often taking tickets that were outside of infrastructure scope (guest OS shit, you broke your own server, what do you want me to do about it?) and working them anyway to please the customer or forwarding them directly to one of our vendors and chaining their support until they caught wise and often pushed back.
- AI is going to ruin Support. To be clear, there will always be support and escalation engineers who have to work real problems outside the scope of AI. However without naming names, there’s a big push (it’ll be everyone before too long, mark it) for FREE tier support to only chat with AI bots. If you need to talk to a real human being, you gotta start dishing out that enterprise cash.
Mix all that together and then put the remaining pressure on the human aspect still holding things up and there’s a collapse coming. Once businesses get so big they’re no longer “obligated” to provide support, they’ll start charging you for it. This has always been a thing of course, anyone who’s worked enterprise agreements knows that. But in classic corpo values, they’re closing the gap. Pay more for support, get less in return. They’ll keep turning that dial until something breaks catastrophically, that’s capitalism baby.
Basically you save money on tech/support because of scale.
So you triple and quadruple your sales and marketing spend to get more business.
In the end it just doesn’t work, except the smaller guys and a lot of them are just hanging on as the stacks get more complicated.
Aws and gcloud are thickening the stack and driving everyone else out of business.
And that’s why you go with the big guys (and pay a premium for it).
I work for a SaaS company that offers a cloud version as well as a software license. We only support the big 3 because everyone else is just keeping their systems up with chewing gum and duct tape, and it’s infuriatingly inconsistent. No way of offering a reasonable SLA or for our support guys to dig into an infra problem. And this includes relatively big players like Ali, Tencent, Yandex, DO or OVH.
In the end, 95% of customers pay less if they choose the cloud version, only if you have 24/7 steady load (and a high one) will it be cheaper to pay for infra, SREs, licenses and support.
Disagree. People are terrible using the cloud, and often are doing lift and shift instead of modernizing.
Incompetent users are the problem, not the cloud.
Completely disagree. This last March, Microsoft changed the storage limit per user on OneDrive for education from 1TB to 100GB, and users either had to delete a ton of files or pay for increased license/space. We ended up standing an on-prem file server back up shortly thereafter because we could not get our users and faculty to delete research data and could not afford to nearly double our cost expenditure. In my experience doing IT budget for years, cloud has meant that you cannot predict your yearly expenditures, Especially if you use your services that are funded in part by venture capital. Let’s say you start using some cool research presentation project and suddenly the economy dips and they lose funding, the cost goes way up. Life cycle management has gone completely out the toilets in my experience with cloud products.
Well, if you did your budget planning with a loss leader that can happen. Did you get prices from AWS S3, Google Suite, Azure Blob storage, GCP, etc, or just blindly went back to what you knew?
We had been a university with office365 for several years, and the price change came well after the product comparison and decision was made. Once you are in an ecosystem like that the cost of changing is astronomical when you include migration labor, training, and loss of productivity during the transition. When you are a university with thousands of student, staff, and alumni accounts, and the office, mail, and authentication environments are integrated, it’s realistically functionally impossible to migrate.
The student A1 licenses are 0 cost without upgrades, which is why it was chosen, but the storage change was a blindside. We had hundreds of accounts using over the 100GB of data (which was within TOS) and had tons of data in onedrive which had to be moved or we had to fork out per account. This was a bait and switch, plain and simple, and that is the issue with “cloud for everything” is you are at their mercy.
Didn’t the 0 cost sound any alarms? Y’all thought that was sustainable?
I don’t understand your disbelief here, the 2 major players in online email and account mgmt (for education) are Google and Microsoft and both are 0 cost, but the bait and switch is the limit lowering mid cycle, not even on the academic calendar. Now that exchange on-prem is essentially dead and Google and MS control email via blacklist politics, it’s a captive market.
How is it a captive market if the whole discussion started with an on-prem migration?
Disagree. People are terrible using the cloud
“Victim-shaming”
Are militaries businesses in a wide sense?
Thinking of those “permissions for Ukraine to strike” being discussed and the reasons Armenia couldn’t use Iskander missiles against Azerbaijan in 2020, and Azerbaijan apparently hasn’t used Lora missiles after 2020.
Id go so far as to say SaaS in general. Small startups are paying $5000/month to send emails and we’ve come to the point where inboxes are monopolized and if you don’t pay up to a cloud provider your emails end up in spam.
Take this and repeat for everything. Monopolize, ratchet up the costs, profit.
spin on-prem back up.
“Repatriating”
Is this the word firms use to kinda hide their error, which was moving to the cloud?
Hybrid approach is not bad
I totally agree…the best solution for the specific problem. “Cloud” was the buzzword solution to every problem for a few years and it wasn’t great in a lot of cases. High I/O home grown apps to be used from a single campus don’t need to be in the cloud. Bulk archive storage doesn’t need to be in the cloud, things like lecture recordings from 10+ years.
For me, it’s the constant buzz around the metaverse.
What in the world is the “metaverse”? Are you referring to the thing “Meta” tries to call virtual reality?
Both the love for Generative AI/LLM is overhyped, but so is the hate for it. They’re actually pretty good tools, they won’t save the world on their own in their current state.
Here’s how I see it. Gen AI and LLMs are really good for things that I won’t pay money for. It’s undoubtedly impressive tech, but it really deserves to remain as a cool research project rather than an actual functional product.
Thank you! They get trashed on all occasions here in the fediverse and I get the animosity since every corp and their mother now wants to ride the hype train. But I’ve kinda changed my mind about AI since having been recommended two AI tools that actually cite sources for their answers (Elicit and Perplexity). They’re an absolute godsend for the literature search on my Bachelor’s Thesis
Mobile apps. They have so much money and users and it still feels like there isn’t as many cool mobile apps as there are cool computer program.
Mobile apps often feel like a web browser with the URL bar.
It’s totally possible to make cool mobile apps, but most of the ones you see are just a big company porting their website.
I know but I expected there to be more cool apps and less shit ones. I’m disappointed by what mobiles have become.
yeah but they are all completely crippled by a touchscreen
I feel like both new cars and phones have been overhyped for a while now.
Ai is simultaneously over and under hyped depending on context.
I think the phone industry is trying very hard to look interesting but it’s been a while since anybody cared? Or is it really just me?
It’s more jjust a lackof reporting. If Apple came out with something new people would lose their minds. But if some no name Chinese company does it, no one cares.
What kind of innovation do you have in mind?
It’s now just pure hype and keeping up with the Joneses.
I feel the same. I think they got to a point where there’s nothing else left to improve, no interesting features to add.
The only feature I am really looking forward to is the return of removable batteries.
Phones are like 💻 now. The year-to-year improvements are tiny. Some factors related to this –
At least for folks like me who sometimes read re chips, chip improvements are 👍. But big year-to-year improvements are probably hard. If it was easy, Apple or Qualcomm may have already designed a chip that was 2 or 3 times faster than the old 1.
So hard to have a clean implementation of under-screen cam and face recognition sensors. Hence, hole punch. Samsung fold has an under-screen front cam but the implemention wasn’t clean and the pic quality is below average.
So hard to make a 🔋 that’s 2 or 3 times better than the old 🔋. The tech world has been so hungry for a 🔋 innovation for a long time. There was optimism re graphene. Idk if it’ll succeed in mass production.
Answering from my Fairphone 3 & its brand new battery 😎
The improvement on cameras is nice though, but I think it’s been nice enough for anyone for a while and people are just comparing color balance now.
Unfortunately, Fairphone is not available in my country. I’d buy it in a heartbeat if it was :(
I just looked. Do they not ship to the U.S.?
Most things to do with Green Energy. Don’t get me wrong, I think solar panels or wind turbines are great. I just think that most of the reported figures are technically correct but chosen to give a misleadingly positive impression of the gains.
Relevant smbc: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/capacity
It’s a slow war but it is being won.
5G, all phone carriers in my country promises gigabit speeds but in my tests results shows slower speeds than current 4G and coverage is worse
From what I understand, 5G was first about increased capacity. Increased speed was a secondary point. It optimizes how multiple users can share the same bands, and adds use of higher frequency bands that don’t propogate as far. So for very high congestion areas, they can deploy smaller cells and which each can maintain higher speeds per user. I think the “faster” part was just marketing to get users to buy into the new technology. I mean I think that was the intent. Something about the implementation needs tuning though.
It ain’t just your country… 5g speeds marketing was total bullshit.
So if that was the lie… Why did they shill it so hard?
that technology doesn’t even make sense
Not apologizing for carriers, some are really on the edge of lying to consumers, but you have to separate the 2 parts that make 5G different from 4G.
- Higher frequencies: means higher throughput but also shorter range (you can literally block that signal with your hand). Only works if your phone supports these higher frequency bands, you have to be in areas where the carrier has deployed cells supporting those, and you have to be close enough.
- Increased efficiency: mostly affects carriers, you likely won’t notice the difference. Basically means, areas that were congested before with LTE will now see less congestion.
I found most 5G ads infuriating. If you know the tech, you understand whats going on and how they aren’t telling the complete story. If you don’t know the tech, you’ll think, “Yay, higher speeds.” Nope…
Works great here with almost 100% coverage
There’s a buzz around the metaverse? Hell, even Meta has cancelled their meta project.
deleted by creator
Quantum computing? The hype isn’t so bad lately and I’m somewhat optimistic but it’s worth a mention.
I feel like it’s hyped just enough. It does have the potential to revolutionize computing but we have no practical applications for it at the current point in its development. There’s only so much you can hype something that can’t even act as a simple calculator better than a handheld calculator can.
it has the potential to revolutionize some optimization problems that are hard to solve classically. It’s going to be practically useless for the average user.
I’d to say that the quality of the hype is completely out of whack. People are expecting the current generation of generative neural networks to do things that they really can’t.
The ammount of total excitement is probably actually too low if you group GNNs with AGI, though.
Easy. AI.
It wasn’t a very long initial question (only a few sentences), but you somehow missed the only qualifier to the whole thing, “…Besides AI,” within that short intro.
It is kind of misleading to leave it out of the title and hide it in the middle of the post. “Besides AI” could’ve easily fit in the post title.
No, people should read an entire thought prior to responding to it.
There’s an entire sub-sector based on that cop-out defence. You’ve … heard of clickbait, right?
The post title was an entire thought in the form of a question. It invited people to come and share their opinions.
Not to mention that in many clients, the title is presented first before the post body. So someone could come up with their answer after reading everything initially presented to them about this post.
Also, skimming is a useful thing that people do, lol
Guilty, you’re right.
Shit!
I came here to say AI, which I’m not allowed to.
Melbourne street fashion. Literally asian style pump flip flops with socks half way up your calves. 80s tracksuit baggies. Trying REALLY hard to look like they’re not trying. The city is loving it.
Edit. Whoops, didn’t see TECH
No worries. Still interesting!
Melbourne is a city of tryhards
I’m going to need pics.
