greebles

[hbquikcomjamesl]

And the iPhone carries precisely zero weight with me. (Or as Agent K would say, "precisely dick.") Because I carry a clamshell, categorically refuse to carry a full-on smartphone capable of downloading and executing apps, and would consider a direct order from my employer to carry one to be grounds for immediate resignation with prejudice. Oh, and discrimination against non-smartphone-users is a "berserk button" with me.

(And note that I make my living as a programmer)

 

[Ithekro]

Today most cars are more or less alike. They are wind tunnel designed and such. The future cars of many decades ago look futuristic next to them due to them being designed by artists.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

I just stumbled across a quote from Matt Jefferies on the ForgottenTrek website. The article describes Jefferies' rationale for giving the Enterprise a smooth exterior hull (believing it made no sense to have mechanical bits exposed to space), then quotes him saying: “I constantly had to fight anyone who wanted to put surface details on the thing.”

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

It's often a good sign when creators put the extra effort in to make something more plausible and then fight to keep it that way.

 

[Dukhat]

I just stumbled across a quote from Matt Jefferies on the ForgottenTrek website. The article describes Jefferies' rationale for giving the Enterprise a smooth exterior hull (believing it made no sense to have mechanical bits exposed to space), then quotes him saying: “I constantly had to fight anyone who wanted to put surface details on the thing.”

So in other words, Jefferies was the complete opposite of John Eaves.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

Saying this over and over doesn't make it true.

Sure. At the same time, it's not untrue simply because keep denying it. This isn't an idea that I've invented. It's widely accepted that as technology improves its complexity increases internally while its appearance simplifies externally. 1.) Components get smaller and more integrated and 2.) Function separates from form.

EDIT: See my additional examples below.

 

[Disposable_Ensign]

And the iPhone carries precisely zero weight with me. (Or as Agent K would say, "precisely dick.") Because I carry a clamshell, categorically refuse to carry a full-on smartphone capable of downloading and executing apps, and would consider a direct order from my employer to carry one to be grounds for immediate resignation with prejudice. Oh, and discrimination against non-smartphone-users is a "berserk button" with me.

(And note that I make my living as a programmer)

I fear it's a losing battle. I have a smartphone but I steadfastly refuse to use things like Apple Pay that make it a requirement. Note that by the 2200s, they've figured out that a phone should just be a phone.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

Ask yourself this: Why does the image on the right of each photo look more modern or futuristic (relative to the photo on the left)?

Answer: It has fewer exposed parts, fewer moving parts, fewer visible joins, and a smoother, simplified form. In other words, it's less mechanical looking.

Naval destroyers:



Airplanes:



Even toasters:

 

[Dukhat]

Except they still build ships and planes similar to the ones on the left.

 

[Disposable_Ensign]

Exactly. And the reason the ones on the right look different is because they needed to for their specific purpose, not because they are newer. The sub and the plane on the right are both designed for stealth; we still use B-52s.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

Exactly. And the reason the ones on the right look different is because they needed to for their specific purpose, not because they are newer. The sub and the plane on the right are both designed for stealth; we still use B-52s.

Yes, the shape of the plane and the destroyer are largely informed by the need for stealth. But the shape isn't the only thing that makes them look modern. It's all the characteristics I highlighted that make them look modern.

For example, the old fashioned airplane has an exposed mechanical part, i.e. its propeller. The modern fighter has no exposed mechanical parts. That may help with stealth, but that's not the reason it has no propeller. That's just an added benefit. Modern jets, even non-stealthy ones, don't use propellers because the tech advanced: orops were replaced by jet engines. Although jet engines are more complex, they look simpler because they don't have the exposed moving part (the prop).

In other words, the lack of exposed mechanical parts on the stealth fighter is indicative of advanced technology; it's not simply a reflection of its purpose.

Also, what you wrote doesn't explain anything about the toaster.

 

[Disposable_Ensign]

Those two toasters operate so differently as to be two separate technologies.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

Don't take my word for it. Here's a designer explaining it:

When we get inspired to manifest an idea, the first iterations are always the most complex in their appearance. The more time and energy is put into a design, the simpler the concept or solution becomes, so the external complexity gets lower. But because so many thoughts went into it and such a deep understanding was necessary to find this shape and form, the interior complexity of the solution is high. A simple appearance comes from a high state of development, while a complex appearance comes from a low state of development.

https://medium.com/design-bootcamp/the-design-paradox-why-complex-is-simple-and-simple-is-complex-2705b4a5e9c5

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

Those two toasters operate so differently as to be two separate technologies.

It's the same technology evolved. That's the point. As tech evols and gets more complex, it looks simpler.

 

[Dukhat]

Yes, the shape of the plane and the destroyer are largely informed by the need for stealth. But the shape isn't the only thing that makes them look modern. Look at all the characteristics I highlighted.

For example, the old fashioned airplane has an exposed mechanical part, i.e. its propeller. The modern fighter has no exposed mechanical parts. That may help with stealth, but that's not the reason it has no propeller. That's just an added benefit. Modern jets, even non-stealthy ones, don't use propellers because that's older, less advanced tech.

In other words, the lack of exposed mechanical parts on the stealth fighter is indicative of advanced technology, it's not simply a reflection of its purpose.

I've become confused as to what your original point is. If they are still producing things that have exposed parts, then it's still advanced technology, just with exposed parts.

Also, what you wrote doesn't explain anything about the toaster.

It's the same technology as you say. One just has a cover over it. That doesn't make the toaster on the right more technologically advanced than the one on the left.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

Except they still build ships and planes similar to the ones on the left.

The general shape is the same, but the specific design elements I highlighted are inarguably different. The ships on the right have less visible mechanical parts, less visible joins, more unibody construction, and overall more simple aesthetics. If you can't concede these objective facts, then you're not having a serious discussion with me.

That, the specific design elements, has been my point all along. I've not made an claims about the general shape of any object. If you've not grasped that, then you're not understanding what I'm saying.

 

[Dukhat]

The general shape is the same, but the specific design elements I highlighted are inarguably different. The ships on the right have less visible mechanical parts, less visible joins, more unibody construction, and overall more simple aesthetics. If you can't concede these objective facts, then you're not having a serious discussion with me.

That, the specific design elements, has been my point all along. I've not made an claims about the general shape of any object. If you've not grasped that, then you're not understanding what I'm saying.

I understand just fine. I also understand that you’re ignoring the things I’m pointing out that don’t fit your own personal narrative. So you’re the one who seems to not want to have a serious discussion.

 

[David cgc]

Ask yourself this: Why does the image on the right of each photo look more modern or futuristic (relative to the photo on the left)?

Answer: It has fewer exposed parts, fewer moving parts, fewer visible joins, and a smoother, simplified form. In other words, it's less mechanical looking.

Naval destroyers:

View attachment 53694

Of course, the ultramodern naval ship on the right also resembles the hundred-and-sixty-year-old CSS Virginia (ex-Merrimack).

 

[B.J.]

Exactly. And the reason the ones on the right look different is because they needed to for their specific purpose, not because they are newer. The sub and the plane on the right are both designed for stealth; we still use B-52s.

That's not a sub.

 

[StarCruiser]

That's not a sub.

Zumwalt class "Destroyer". The ship on the left is an old US Navy Armored Cruiser - Tennessee class, I believe.