Hello.
Back in December 2022, you and I began to discuss a very serious topic concerning how it is necessary to build development mechanisms in order to stand confidently on our feet. This concerned primarily technology, but social issues were not left aside. It all started with the realization of the need for a smooth transition from one technology to another:
That text mentioned legacy systems that companies are trying to fit seamlessly into the modern world. In particular, pneumatic mail, which some time ago could be seen in many branches of the then Sberbank.
The invention solves the immediate problem of sending a check to the next room, but in the long term it creates certain work habits that are contrary to development. Despite the fact that there were many options for execution. Scanners of all kinds, secure corporate smartphones that can be used as cameras and information transmitters, and even just surveillance cameras installed at employee locations, under which they could place a document, would be more progressive. Of course, I cannot say with one hundred percent certainty the true purpose of the pneumatic communication channel, but I think that this is a crutch that is rare in its archaic nature.
The same material mentioned ATMs from the USA, where it is possible to deposit checks. Yes, those same tear-off checkbooks that people sometimes use to pay, writing them out instead of paying in cash. And even for the smallest amounts.
However, somehow in the comments it was pointed out to me that ATMs are precisely an example of the adaptation of technology and the implementation of the very principle of continuity that was denied during the course of the story. And indeed it is! What is a check? This is the same banknote, which means that no new technology for mechanical interaction with it is needed. But the level of text recognition programs can be upgraded. And voila, we have a universal device that services ultra-modern plastic cards, accepts banknotes, and recognizes checks with handwritten scribbles.
Nine months later (funny coincidence) followed an article built around the argument that the speed of development and the sustainability of the level of technology often conflict.
In one case, this results in a loss of competence when NASA cannot find a specialist to restore a unique video recorder that was used 50 years ago. It would seem, what kind of problem is this? With the modern level of technology. But no. It’s not that simple. Eldar wrote about this in “Spillies No. 339”:
By the way, there was an even wilder story about children’s surprise at the sight of a computer mouse. I must admit, even now I only use the touchpad on my laptop in Numpad mode when I’m practicing in Blender, and Eldar’s words about children and the cursor are so 2015!
The other extreme is conditional transfers of money “to a book” in parallel with the existence of plastic cards. I don’t know if they are used now, but the energy consumption of visiting a branch, persistently standing in line and printing a new number into a small document symbolizing a change in the pension account, with existing plastic cards and notifications, sounds like some kind of mockery. Many may argue that it is difficult for the older generation to study. But no. Social cards instead of change were used very quickly. Not faster than the TV remote control, but still. This means that there was a deliberate slowdown here. This, by the way, partly reflects the opinion of the respected Deodorant:
It’s hard to disagree. If modern gamers don’t need VR, in which you have to stand, wave your arms and turn from side to side, then how will it develop? Today, by the way, I was able to make sure that, in addition to the limited catalog of games, VR is also hampered by the psychological inertia of the user. The fact is that my wife and I were finally crushed by our children and we bought them a helmet. Like Doni, I will write a review. Philistine. For now, I will say that I am delighted. There was simply nothing cooler in my gaming experience. Now all that’s left is to wait for some NFS in VR, buy a steering wheel and a chair and… I digress. Deodorant is right that without the demand of the audience there will be no leap in the growth of technology. By the way, about horse racing.
A sharp increase in the advancement of systems while maintaining a low-level perception of them will not lead to anything good. In the text at the link above there is a mention of Amazon, which was the first to introduce stores without cash registers, consultants and any kind of visitor participation in the process of purchasing goods, except for taking the desired item from the shelf and moving it to the cart. The failure of the project was explained by problems with confidentiality, which stores violated when learning information about a person necessary to pay for goods. Fears on the level of “they stole my biometrics, now my apartment will be stolen.” Although I saw a mention somewhere that the supposedly involved computer vision and product recognition technologies were nothing more than a lot of cameras coupled with an outsourced set of citizens from India who simply could not cope with the job of recording goods in real time. Well, today retail in the US is already having a hard time, so the project will, in any case, wait for better times. Thus, in addition to directly satisfying desires, and, of course, we would all like to simply take the desired product and leave the store with it without standing in lines, and the technical capabilities necessary to implement the idea, we must also take into account the possibility of that very leap in development . But, unfortunately, this very “leap” is often a strategic decision, not a tactical one. And in the process of its implementation, future success may not be obvious to those who are the object of improvement.
Let me give you a simple analogy. Rubik’s cube. For me it was a gestalt of gestalts. I think I won’t be wrong if I assume that for many it has become a puzzle that they only saw assembled at the time of purchase. I’ll say more. You will hardly meet a person who will be able to assemble it without referring to the assembly diagram (if any of you succeeded, please let me know). The thing is that there is one trap in this damned cube, which 99% of those who try to collect it fall into. Here it is:
You can purely theoretically reach this stage yourself. I was honestly only able to assemble the first two layers without any hints. Then I gave up and started watching the assembly according to the instructions. And here is the problem that awaits you when assembling from this position (I slowed it down a little):
If it’s not clear, you can see a very measured assembly below:
The point is that in order to finally put the corners in place and turn them into the desired position, the entire cube “breaks”. What was going on during the first thirty seconds (I’m bragging a little) collapses. The individual elements are mixed again. And if you don’t know that these actions will lead to results, you want to give up the whole process, because it begins to seem that you won’t come to the right decision. But, again, to do this you need to know what you are doing. These observations well illustrate the theme of the September material in this series:
Actually, the title of the article matches the idea as closely as possible. In the text, we appealed to the fact that in dead-end situations one should turn to invention, since it, while developing according to clear laws, is at the same time cyclical (remember the S-shaped law of development). Therefore, the results are predictable and expected. However, despite the obviousness of these conclusions, no one takes them into service, and we are forced to watch the rise of certain technical solutions due to random hype. And the readers again found an explanation. In particular, he was prompted Philip Mastyaev:
Philip skillfully (you can feel his teaching experience) pushes towards a solution, focusing on the unrealisticness of the alternative. And here I would like to ask a really serious question. Are we capable of re-education?
The answer flows smoothly from the selection of articles given above, but the obvious conclusion that I recently read again from Lukyanenko helped me put everything together.
I read science fiction to children, and in the book “Stars are Cold Toys” one characteristic detail of the cosmic race is given, which is that the concept of “world” does not exist in its vocabulary. There is only a “desire for peace.” Features of behavior are appropriate. The analogy with some of today’s geopolitical players is direct, but we are not interested in the literal use of the principle. Let’s think about it. If they constantly strive, then, accordingly, they always do something within the framework of the goal. And we are not talking about inventing new trinkets. Everything fits into one single goal. The desire for peace. What if we use a similar approach for the technology level, but only so that they are not an end in themselves?
I once mentioned two personality types. One wants what she sees. The other is thinking about how to do the same thing, only better. By the way, China does this at minimum wages. At minimum wages – this is because today he is in the role of Japan, which in the post-war years bought up technology in order to exclusively delight the world with its VCRs, cassette players and tube flat-screen TVs, and China has taken the role of an indispensable performer, who, in parallel with diligent work, is also himself learned to provide for myself. I will modestly keep silent about compliance with the intellectual rights of Western companies in China. Yes, the Chinese provide their rear with the help of technologies a generation older, but for strategic survival, 10 nm will do.
Thus, in order not to be in a vulnerable position, the player must not only exclusively prohibit others from producing what he produces, and be able to do what others cannot. The goal is to be able to surpass yourself. Competitors are a limiter. I’m sure everyone has heard the expression “the strongest among the weak.” This is exactly the kind of complacency that suits everyone. A good example would be Niva. This name has already become a household name. The most passable and further on the list. But how many caustic comments are heard that it does not change from year to year? Yes, there are many internal factors preventing this, but in all these years, really, no one came up with the idea of some kind of tuning studio, where problems known for 30 years were eliminated with some basic set? This is exactly what large IT companies do today. A startup was found that expands the capabilities of users of the basic model of the main service, and it (the startup) is added to the team.
I believe that the approach of striving to surpass oneself should be trained in the smallest things. Without it, absurd entities begin to breed. There are several leather public pages where people post their work. Lots of beginners. You can often see how a person posts frankly low-quality work over and over again. Design, novelty of the image, execution, and materials suffer. But a whole cohort of connoisseurs has appeared who call it “with soul.” Edward Norton argued similarly in “Fight Club” regarding the bubbles and unevenness in the plates, which were evidence of the honest manual labor of some migrant in the factory.
We need more suggestion boxes in enterprises, rationalization, optimization and invention. No matter how much they talk about the impossibility of refusing to integrate into the global system of trade and interaction between countries, it will always be cooperation where there is a loser. Buying to get hooked on a brand means getting addicted and losing. Buy to outdo and do it yourself is the path to self-sufficiency. And for this you need the same re-education. Instead of “I want” it should be “cool, but how did they do it?” Cultivate curiosity and inquisitiveness, overcome the fear of doing something with your hands. Today, children mistakenly think that modern companies press a button and finished products fall out, which are assembled by robots somewhere out there. I really don’t want these children to later turn into graduates who, when they come to the enterprise, get scared and run to the office to sell Chinese goods.
Bold ideas, great inventions and successful products. Good luck!
Source: mobile-review.com
