A few, incremental advances in technology, but mostly even more controlling consumer crap masquerading as progress. Also, even worse politicians. The US slowly becoming third world. If global warming is legit, more floods.

Regarding technology, I think we are going to see AR and VR become more prevalent in society. Facebook(or Meta now) is leading the charge here and fully intending to dominate the whole sphere and honestly, I think they probably will. When you build AR/VR you are creating a whole new world with entirely new markets and entirely new infrastructure. This means that they will own the markets and the infrastructure and can dictate who and how people use it as well as take a healthy cut of the profits from third parties that make money on it. This is made worse by the fact that as it's a virtual world it is entirely based on programs and code, so whereas in the real world if I buy an x brand shirt I can where it where ever I like, in the virtual world you can only where a Meta world shirt in the meta world, everything you buy and every place you go will be wholly locked to that one virtual world owned by that one company. So however gets in first has a huge advantage, because they will have that infrastructure and they will have that monopoly. Even huge players like apple would not be able to compete, they would have to create a whole new world and hope that people abandon all of their virtual meta possessions and their virtual meta lives to go there.

This is assuming that VR/AR does become dominant. Just how prevalent it becomes is hard to foretell. It's going to be more than a gimmick but there is a chance it may not be much more than that.

The other technological changes are already happening, like green energy and electric cars. We are not going to be fully green in 10 years of course however. There is an assumption that green energy technology will keep improving exponentially but there is always a limit to that before it starts going the other way and you get diminishing returns instead. We are also going to start running into the drawback of green energy in ways that we have not in a serious manner so far. Many of the solar panels and wind turbines that were installed decades ago are going to need to be replaced and recycled, we are probably going to run into resource issues as well and are probably going to have to start looking into the real environmental impact of the kinds of green energy we use. But who knows, major innovations in green energy could occur out of nowhere.

As for society... That's the worrying part. The Metaverse is going to turn everything into a dystopian nightmare of drones connected to a hive-mind dominated by a company. If it reaches the expectations of the company itself anyway, which as I said is hard to tell and may not happen.

But even ignoring that. Social media is already having a huge impact on society. Look at Youtube comments from 10 years ago, they are individual people writing individual comments that have some degree of thought to them and relevance to the topic of the video. Now look at what we get. We get memes, that's it. They may as well be bots. Even the videos themselves are far different than they were before, I am frequently being bombarded by thumbnails with 4chan memes for videos about games, or ships or history or anything. Videos in general are becoming shorter as well and there are also platforms like T*k T*k appearing that exacerbate this with their short, low effort meme clip format. The attention span of the average person has dropped dramatically and how they communicate with each other has devolved into short, thoughtless and repetitive phrases, we communicate in memes now.

Social media enables media and ideas to rapidly and easily spread through entire populations in hours or even minutes. And it can be done by anybody. Anybody can contribute to the spreading of memes meaning that what we see, what we hear, what we think is no longer dictated to us by level headed, qualified, educated upper middle class people. What we think is instead dictated to us by the emotional, click-baiting, uneducated and ignorant masses of the poor. It's simply a numbers game now.

we are going to keep devolving, I really don't see it getting better. As a whole anyway. At some point the more reasonable among us will decide enough is enough and detach form it entirely.

Being blackpilled is no way to go through life.

Personally, I'm a bit more onboard with an "open market" outlook for the VR and AR space. So, more and more private parties will venture into these two. I don't think the market stakeholders will adopt these new media so fast that most of our life will be in AR/VR within 10 years, but they will have a more significant role. As examples off the top of my head: small to medium sized VR MMOs, immersive VR RPGs, VR chatrooms and AR business/team meetings. I think these (among others) are more attainable in the short-term.

Another aspect is finance. I reckon there will be those who seize new investing opportunities and the benefits of new financial tools (from BNPL apps to crypto banking) and those who will succumb to their own financial indiscipline. But I guess that's just more the same. However, a lot will be left behind, that's for sure. This would, of course, have many ramifications, particularly political ones on matters such as the rising populism and polarization between more neoliberal and more socialist democracies around the world.

If I can predict one thing is that, for the smart and sensible among us, life in 10 years will be more interesting and captivating, when you consider not just the above but domotics, connected cars and IoT, flexible working and many alternative sources of income, space exploration, and many more amazing things...

>>39124 >>39126 >>39128
I don't like vr and I don't want it having any part in my life. We really don't need more bullshit further complicating our lives. It's not an innovation; it makes nothing more convenient and offers nothing except shallow novelty.

People that pay up for any shiny new shit are fools.

>>39129
Have you tried it?

>>39132
No, and I don't plan to unless forced or something is offered which I see actual value in, enough to justify owning another device that costs hundreds of dollars and needs maintenance and or periodic replacement.

Post edited on 13th Jan 2022, 11:29pm

>>39129
It's too soon to say. They will be able to do all kinds of things with AR. But on top of that, it has huge potential integrating with social media and the like. Sure, you and me are not going to want to be able to open up and read Facebook posts from our glasses wherever we are and reply to them wherever we are. But the masses will.

>>39123
Agree strongly on the state of technology. In my opinion there have been no meaningful advances since ~2010 or so in the consumer sector. Consider that you a desktop (or even high-end laptop) from then is perfectly usable now. And the state of the developer ecosystem has gotten _worse_ since 2010 in my opinion. My predictions here are very dismal and cynical: greater shift away from "personal" computing into walled-garden as a service, more javascript bullshit, etc.

I really hope there's another tech crash soon, because I'm sick and tired of inanities (web3, iot, etc.) disguised as progress. In fact I bet there will be, because VC money isn't infinite and there'll be a reckoning sooner or later.

I don't expect adtech and the big tech conglomerates to die just yet, at least not within 10 years. They have too much momentum and so far the populace doesn't really seem to mind. There is increasing murmurs of discontent among devs and power users, so I do expect them to lose quite a bit of mindshare and they've already started their decline from their zenith (e.g. google of 2014 is nowhere close to google of 2022, both in terms of internal and external perception). Near the end of 10 years they will be in a prime position to be usurped by some new upstart.

I do expect that some startup will create a search engine that will beat Google at its own game within the next 5 years by catering to powerusers and building off of that momentum. Google is no longer focusing on search quality, and they're instead optimizing for mobile users in order to chase that sweet ad revenue. This will be their achilles heel, and distributed systems have become commoditized enough that Google's tech stack which was once their secret sauce is no longer a sufficient moat to prevent competition.

On the research side, I expect the hype around ML to slow down. There's been some really terrific achievements in the past few years alone, but I'm willing to bet the next breakthrough will come by taking a step back to develop a more unified theory of _why_ these deep neural nets work the way they do, and why some architectures perform better than others. "Geometric deep learning" is something to keep an eye out for here. I suspect there are also strong ties to information theory here.

As for other CS fields (since that's all I really feel qualified to comment about), there is a decent chance of there being a shakeup in the hardware world. There's a lot of renewed interest in chip design, and while sadly most of it is focused on hardware accelerators, I'm betting some of that will nonetheless end up being put into good practice. We're already seeing a switch away from x64, with of course not only apple's m1 but also aws offering graviton and such.

>>39124
I have no idea where all this hype around AR/VR came from. Just because Facebook insists on this "metaverse" doesn't mean there's actually anything behind it. Whatever the result is, I suspect it will be similar to the whole "smartwatch" thing – overpromised and underdelivered. There will be a place for it – AR especially – but it will coexist in the context of the rest of the tech ecosystem.

I dont think it'll be much different for us.

>>39166
By this, I mean that we will either be priced out of participating in whatever technological revolution or refuse to join in to stay on the fringes of society and keep using the internet like it's 2004 for as long as we can because even if there's an exciting new virtual world with lots to do it wont matter if the people are disliked.

>>39140
>I have no idea where all this hype around AR/VR came from. Just because Facebook insists on this "metaverse" doesn't mean there's actually anything behind it.

It's not just insisting, Facebook spent 10 billion dollars on it last year. I'm not saying that means it's going to work how the want it to, but they are putting money on this project. You probably have heard about Microsoft buying Activision, during this both Microsoft and Activison were talking about this being part of a move towards the Metaverse as well, but maybe that is just words.

>>39166
>>39168
Probably. Unless Metaverse becomes some all consuming entity that forces people to use it, like the internet. And/or developers stop developing for the internet and such and instead focus on the Meta Verse. That's worse case scenario and I don't think it will happen.

>>39174
I'll believe it when I see it. You can't just declare this metaverse by fiat, much like the "internet" it can only happen when there is buy in from everyone. Otherwise what you've got is a walled garden.

And I still haven't seen a good definition of what the "metaverse" exactly is, and how it would differ from the internet (in the conventional sense as the global shared wide area network). Obviously on a technical level the metaverse will still rely on the internet, so is this something purely distinguished by the kind of applications that VR will enable. (Kind of like how ajax led to the birth of interactive websites, services, and the whole shift from web as a means of consuming mostly static information to "web2" as we know it today with rich server/client communication?). I still don't see what VR is going to offer that will fundamentally change things.

>>39168
It becomes increasingly impossible to remain a part of society and not adapt new technology because society will naturally come to depend on that technology.

As an example, consider cellphones and internet. In maybe 2000-ish you could still get by fine without really having a computer, and a landline was a perfectly good substitute for a cellphone in case you needed to be reached. In today's world however, you are expected to have a computer and to be able to access the internet. Without it, you will be cut off from the vast majority of things needed to live within "modern" society: you will not be able to apply for jobs, many bills can now only be received and paid electronically, etc. An email address is considered "essential" and you cannot even use many internet services without giving it a cell number.

There are work arounds for all of these, but each year the burden to simply keep the status quo becomes greater.

>>39183
I had assumed Metaverse was just going to be some mix of Second Life and other various online services like Zoom or Yelp, not an entirely different form of internet like in sci-fi.
I see a lot of people assuming it'll be like the second coming of techno-Christ and how it'll radically change the internet forever, but to me it seems like people are falling over for what boils down to marketing terms made to generate hype/stocks.

>>39187
>I see a lot of people
Where do you see this? I see nothing but derision, mockery, and some hyperbolic anger. Left or right, non-technical or technical, it seems the majority don't care for this move by Meta.

>>39123
>If global warming is legit, more floods.
It's not real but they're going to act like it is. There will be climate lockdowns and carbon passports.

Most governments around the Western World are facing a crisis of legitimacy due to their failure to adhere to the will of the people. Governments have done this since the dawn of time of course but this time the people have a catalogue of every time the government has done the opposite of what people want in the form of online discussion and news. Governments of course know this which is why they're all desperately trying to censor everything online.

The age of the neoliberal corporate crony political system is coming to a close one way or the other. Either by revolution, reform or governments unleashing totalitarianism to protect themselves from the uprising. It might not be in 10 years but I can't imagine the current status quo existing for more than 20 years in the future.

>>39184
An email address is far less frivolous than a VR system

>>39205
>the will of the people
And that would be what exactly?

>>39207
Generally what I mean is that people don't want to be impeded when they go through life, they want their freedoms and rights respected and most of all they want safety and security, both right now and in the future. What they got instead was warrantless wiretapping, ridiculous pandemic-related mandates that have no proven effectiveness, their future prospects completely destroyed by debt, inflation stagnating wages and outsourcing and every time anyone brings any of it up they're told that they have to make sacrifices while the people who decided all of these things make no sacrifices whatsoever. The politicians haven't lost anything, nor have the Warren Buffets and Elon Musks of the world.

When a "rules for thee, but not for me" scenario arises, people notice and they want that to be corrected. And there are far more regular people than oligarchs. The oligarchs just have more money and power so it could go either way in the future.

>>39207
Depends on class and background. The government doesn't really fully please anybody though.

>>39208
If you believe shadowy conspiracies then there's the line of thought that this is all intentional so that revolution will happen and a new world order will be established. Of course hanlon's razor is the most likely explanation, but one way or the other it does seem like we're at a precarious point and all it'll take is the next recession to push things over.

Meh, I've been hearing cataclysmic doomsaying forever. Yes, most people have little faith in their governments but I doubt Myanmar like situations will become widespread.

>>39205
>>39208
People have known about these things for a long time and even when they do know they don't care or do anything about it. People only revolt if their livelihoods are directly threatened. It's not hard to find shady dealings between my government and mining companies, but so long as people have food on the table they don't care about that, they won't put their life and livelihood on the line just because of shady dealings. So any civil unrest is dependent on the economy(as we have seen historically as well).

It's really hard to predict how the economy will behave even over 10 years. Unless you are in China you will probably be fine though, well parts of Europe may have some issues as well but not on the scale we are probably going to see in China.

>>39123
The US is either in one of its turbulent decades that it has before prosperity, its about to turn into South Africa 2.0 or conspiracy stuff is true and then it would depend which conspiracy it was.

Post edited on 1st Feb 2022, 7:48pm

>>39214
>depend which conspiracy it was
I hope it's the one where the deep state is composed of loli succubi.

I mean to use sage. My bad.

>>39215
It would explain the blind eye the US turns towards 2D

>>39122
Will Laura be remembered in ten years?

>>39218
No precure will ever be truly forgotten.

Animated PNG

I predict in ten years time Tohno might have configured SSL for the site

>>39411
SSL is centralization faggotry.

>>39411
http://n-gate.com/software/2017/07/12/0/

TLS is unnecessary for an imageboard. If your threat model is that you're being monitored, you are personally welcome to tunnel your traffic through a known good endpoint. But otherwise, all adding tls on websites that don't need it does is enforce planned obsolescence on devices, whether through root certs or protocol upgrades. Yes both of these can be manually upgraded on the client, but again it is adding a roadblock for no good reason (and some perfectly good clients can't be upgraded).

>>39411
I believe kusaba-chan it to be blamed for that, and there nobody willing to fix her.

>>39413
A nice compromise would be to enable SSL but not require it.

>>39416
Wouldn't it be the web server (apache or nginx) not kusaba-chan? The imageboard software itself should be agnostic to whatever transport protocol or wrappers were used since by the time content arrives at the php process it should already be unwrapped and just be a regular content bytestream.

>enable SSL but not require it.
Yes this would be nice (serving on both 443 and 80). I suppose it might theoretically leave you open to downgrade attacks but the browser would still indicate if you're using tls or not so it should be fine.

>>39417
It's not the encoding, as you're right, the httpd does the heavy lifting there. If I remember with any correctness, kusaba-chan will render documents whose links explicitly specify the scheme (HTTP in this case), and she might also be routing via scheme as well. So, if you connect via HTTPS you'll be getting nearly everything via plain ol' HTTP (at best), and some confusion will ensue on the part of kusaba-chan--maybe. I'm not 100% sure.