That is expected. The problem is that people are not getting healthier, or more intelligent, quite the opposite.
Obviously there is an absolutely massive problem that you're missing as you're congratulating yourself on "succeeding" with a massive effort with no clear result.
These people have been a problem in the west for over a century. They are unintelligent people who spend their lives fighting what confuses them, and replacing it with something worse, that they can understand.
There is no reason to believe that a lack of nitrogen was a problem in particular. It seems that most effort was spent on getting fertilizers with phosphorus and other minerals, nitrogen was secondary, as many plants can obtain it from the air. If anything, it allows our modern, heavily cereal skewed diet. Poor nutrition rarely meant an absolute lack of food, most of the time it only meant insufficuent quality, and the green revolution was a massive step backward in that regard
That is literally true, but for anyone who hasn't studied plant biology, I think that "some plants have evolved specific structures to host obligate symbiotic bacteria that obtain nitrogen from the air and convert it into a form usable by the plant" is close enough to "many plants can obtain [nitrogen] from the air".
It seems to me (and maybe I'm wrong), but it seems to me that "a lack of IP" increasingly means "we have no leverage to get the licences that we need" in China, and "we have no idea how they used to do it" in the west.
China doesn't need licences. They can just violate western IP law and make lots of money. As every country without a need to placate the IP industry does.
You can't steal everything if you intend to export. That's why they bought Qimonda's IP portfolio, so they have valid licenses when they start to sell their products in the west and not get banned for IP theft, although I assume the US & allies will just ban them anyway for another dozen reasons out of protectionism.
My biggest worry is that the development of AI will stop once people can no longer easily tell when the AI is wrong. Following its advice may become mandatory in certain aspects of life. But it will be quite not good enough, and give catastrophic advice, but the failures will be blamed on people who don't follow it correctly.
I think it was because old TVs already had wide gamut, so sRGB meant a significant reduction. It never was "contrast" as such. Anything made today is vastly better than any CRT.
I think it would be pretty uncontroversial from the technological point of view, but then, the first "real" TV broadcast would be the 1936 Olympic games...
"Dieselpunk" is sometimes considered the next door neighbor term for WW1 through early 1950's retrofuturism with electricity and radios/very early televisions.
Sometimes people use "Steampunk" for shorthand for both because there are some overlaps in either direction, especially if you are trying for "just" pre-WWI retrofuture. Though I think the above poster was maybe especially trying to highlight the sort of pre-WWI overlap with Steampunk with more electricity but not yet as many cars and "diesel".
I don't know. Steam and electricity seem more like a coincidence that they were developed at the same time, so worlds without one seem natural. Another possibility might be no semiconductors. No nuclear also feels plausible, but it's just not interesting. Anything else requires a massive stretch to explain why technology got stuck in such a state.
Perhaps, if you are worried about realism from the perspective of modern technology. But a lot of the concept of retrofuturism is considering the possible futures from the perspectives of the past. You don't necessarily need realism for why you would consider an exercise like that.
Steampunk is "rootable" in the writings of Jules Verne and H. G. Wells and others. We have scifi visions from Victorian and Edwardian lenses. It wasn't needed at the time to explain how you steam power a submarine or a rocket ship, it was just extrapolating "if this goes on" of quick advances in steam power and expecting them to eventually get there.
Similar with a lot of Diselpunk. The 1930s through the 1950s are often referred to as the Golden Age of scifi. There's so much science fiction written in the real world with a zeal for possible futures that never happened. We don't necessarily need a "massive stretch" to explain why technology took a different path or "got stuck" at a particular point. We've plenty of ideas of the exuberance of that era just in the books that they wrote and published themselves.
(Not that we are lacking in literary means to create excuses for the "realism" of retrofuture, either, when we care to. For one obvious instance, the Fallout franchise's nuclear warfare is central to its dieselpunk setting and an obvious reason for technology to get "stuck". For one less obvious reason, I like "For All Mankind" and its "Apollopunk" setting using the excuse of Russia beating the United States to first boots on the Moon and the butterfly impacts that could have had.)
I mean that steampunk looks plausible, because it indeed seems to be purely a historical coincidence that electricity was developed at the same time. They are unrelated, one doesn't follow from the other in any way, so there is no obvious need to have both.
You pretty much need to have both chemistry and electricity, or neither.
Even Jules Verne understood the impossibility (or at least absurd impracticality) of a steam powered submarine, and made Nautilus electric.
It's unclear if internal combustion engines would be developed without electricity, and to what degree they would become practical.
I'm not sure about semiconductors, but the discovery does seem fairly random, and it seems plausible that electronics could just go on with vacuum tubes.
It seems perfectly plausible that nuclear wasn't noticed or practically developed, but, as I said, it just isn't an interesting setting.
Yes, there is something obviously wrong with most LED lights, but it isn't too much of short wavelength light, but on the contrary. It's the near absence of cyan light in most LEDs. Our eyes are by far the most sensitive to it, the majority of receptors in the eye are sensitive to it, and we may focus primarily on it (focus differs for different wavelengths). This is how you get the feeling of something being wrong with your vision as you for example walk into a mall, and so on.
If anything, higher temperature lights seem to make it better, not worse, but the problem will persist as long as the cyan hole stays there.
Sensitivity peak for humans is in cyan (~510nm) only for low-light conditions (night vision / rod cells). In daylight (cone cells) it's green-yellow (555nm).
https://www.giangrandi.ch/optics/eye/eye.shtml
>The eye behaves differently in high or low light conditions: in daylight, for brightness levels above 3 cd/m2 the vision is mainly done by the centre of the retina, we can see colors and the maximum sensitivity is at 555 nm (in the green region). This type of vision is called photopic vision.
That's completely impossible, you would have severe tunnel vision in daylight, if it was true.
There has never been any real evidence that rods stop working in daylight.
Obviously there is an absolutely massive problem that you're missing as you're congratulating yourself on "succeeding" with a massive effort with no clear result.
reply