this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
24 points (100.0% liked)

Moving to: m/AskMbin!

22 readers
1 users here now

### We are moving! **Join us in our new journey as we take a new direction towards the future for this community at mbin, find our new community here and read this post to know more about why we are moving. Thank you and we hope to see you there!**

founded 1 year ago
 

As a car enthusiast, I can think of a good one, the Ford Nucleon.

During the 1950s and 1960s, there was considerable interest in nuclear power and its potential applications. This led to the idea of using nuclear energy to propel cars. The concept behind a nuclear car was to utilize a small nuclear reactor to generate steam, which would then power the vehicle's engine.

Of course back in those days, this was extremely futurustic and some at the time thought this would be a game changer, but ultimately, the safety aspect was one of the biggest reasons why this idea was dropped, and I probably don't have to explain why it may not have considered to be safe, I mean, it was using nuclear power, so even if the engineers tried to make it as safe as possible, IF something went wrong, it would have been catastrophic.

Ever since then, the interests in the automotive sector has shifted to Electric and Hydrogen.

Still, a very intriguing concept car and idea.

Outside cars, you have blimps, and I personally believe if we tried to make something like a hindenburg today with existing technology, we might have been a lot more successful than back then (as it goes way back to 1930s), there are still some blimps used occasionally, I also don't believe those use hydrogen(?), but they are not the "game changer in air travel" it was once seen as, although we can't rule out a comeback.

What about you guys?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

In the 1990s VR was right around the corner, but we didn't have processors, network, it displays we needed to make it happen. Thirty years on, we have the hardware we need, but it remains a niche/enthusiast technology. Motion sickness remains an issue.

Maybe that'll change with Apple's foray into AR.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We’re now running into the soft problems of VR. Things like the weight of the device, the hazards and downsides being disconnected from the real world, the lack of large indoor spaces, etc. are showing the weaknesses in the model of VR we envisioned.

Also, VR platforms are really tightly controlled. PCs got big because you didn’t need to use Dell or Gateway’s App Store to do things. Jail breaking is a thing but not for most people.

Until VR stops feeling like a brick strapped to your face and has true AR capability I don’t think it will get big. And it definitely won’t get big with a bunch of closed ecosystems.

[–] amio@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Most people love their proprietary walled gardens. They just don't think like that.

[–] TheArstaInventor@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah that's certainly a good one, I am still wary of VR, due to how close it is to your eyes.

I am more hopeful about AR though because you are not locked into a virtual world and that extremely close screen to your eyes, it's basically like see through glasses with computer, hence I am guessing it might be better for your eyes than pure VR?

Cost is going to be an issue for a good while though, and I still don't think they will ever replace or be as big as phones, as some believe it could be, the portability is just unbeatable with smartphones (flip phones making that aspect even better), although maybe AR can compete with computers more?

I'm personally skeptical but a very interesting and futuristic sci-fi tech for sure.