How come technology has stagnated over the past few years? All

>>52275349
>How come technology has stagnated over the past few years?
I love this meme.

>Why is there no i9
i9 IS NOT A FUCKING MEASUREMENT
i3, i5, i7 ARE JUST PRODUCT LINES
WHEN YOU SAY YOU BOUGHT AN i5, NOBODY EVEN FUCKING KNOWS WHAT GENERATION YOU BOUGHT IT FROM
STOP USING THIS TERM LIKE IT'S A MEASUREMENT OF PERFORMANCE

Those things already exist. You don't here about them often since they're too expensive and not very many people can get their hands on it

>>52275349
I believe on big factor for phone batteries is that since everyone wants HD 4k screens, it uses more power. If you look at any smartphone battery usage breakdown, the display is the biggest hog.

Additionally, the same reason why many things don't get significantly better is because it's all a business and how can companies guarantee return business... just like those gum commercials where they're forcing people to spit out the old piece and chew another; if they making something that lasts significantly better they won't profit.

>>52275349
>i9
read >>52275385's post. actually I don't get why Intel doesn't just rename the high-end line (X79/X99) "i9"
>petabyte storage
we're down very close to laws-of-physics limits in hard drives, rather like we are in CPUs. In any case they're continuing to expand apace, but the price is coming down a lot more slowly now, since nowadays it's not being driven by consumer demand - consumers don't care anymore, they're plebs that stream shit - it's being driven by the datacenter. Anyway if you want a petabyte, you can have it, it's just that it'll fill half a rack and cost half a million dollars.
>No batteries which last longer than a day on smartphones or holographic displays?
could be done with current technology. They don't because thinness is a fashion trend, so every incremental improvement in capacity gets used for having less battery instead of more runtime.

It's probably for the better that shit slows down. Software has gotten worse faster than hardware has gotten better. And poor privacy and security practices are getting more and more entrenched, that needs to be remedied. We need to clean up how we use what we have, instead of just throwing more hardware at our problems.

>>52275349
The green triangle has been extended one unit

>>52275682
> tfw my phone lasts two full days with heavy usage

> tfw my phone lasts four days if I turn airplane mode on at night

>>52275720
No it wasn't.

>>52275349
Moores law is progressing at its predicted rate.
I think people are just getting impatient because it all feels so close. Since a much bigger mass of people are technological minded, the hype train gets magnified.
And I gotta say, it rustled my jimmies when I read "i9", that's not a measure of performance, it's an Intel product line.

>>52275349
I'm on phone and can't verify, but it looks like the grids shrink vertically as they go down, thus the angles of the top and bottom shape are different. This leaves room for fucking about with the shape of the red and teal triangles to chop off a grand total of one arbitrary unit from them.

>>52275349
Why is the question in the picture posed as if it's a paradox? You rearrange the shapes; of course it would be different.

The tech itself is developing quite quickly, but what gets released to the consumer market, that's a different thing.
There are already 16TB SSDs in use in the professional world and have been for some time and what we get are these little 2TB shits.

The market is milking the fuck out of every possible tech, so of course everything seems to have stagnated.
And it doesn't help that most people are consumer drones who go out and buy a new flagship phone or a new CPU every damn year.
There's no incentive for the market to start pumping out better products, when people are happy enough to buy something that's only marginally better
Not to mention our processor tech is coming to the end of it's road and new alternative needs to be found.
That's a big undertaking and requires fucktons of money.
No one wants to be the first guy to take the initiative in a case like this, because it's always a risk for the investor.

File: twotriangles.png (2KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 400x400px

>>52275349
red triangle has slope 3/8=0.375
green slope 2/5=0.4
see pic
the difference in area is 1 unit

>>52275349
The slope of both triangles are uneven. The areas are both 32 square units.

I just printed the picture out, cut the figures out and fucking hell it doesn't add up. The triangle just disappeared.

>>52276156
>>52276194
Both false

>>52276297
why?

>>52276156
>>52276156
Too soon. You should have keep that for yourself. Paradox are fun when you don't show the solution and look at people becoming crazy.

>>52276332
Do the math. Coordinate the points and find the actual slope. They are the same.

Tech didn't stagnate, you did.

>>52276332
the triangles are identical. you can even skip doing the math and use paint to check it yourself right now.

>>52276352
2/5 != 3/8

>>52275720
That is not the trick

All triangles are exactly the same

fun fact: an i5 can be faster than a i7

it's like saying "why didn't they make car modal 5?" well it is because they started calling them A to Z after that

>>52275378
this

>>52276352
>>52276377

I want these to be bait but I feel like they aren't

>>52275456
Why does a phone need a 4k screen? That makes no sense.

>>52275349
Slight shifts. Wouldn't be possible in real life. Just look at the bottom triangle's red triangle, bottom row, third square from the left. You'll notice the difference immediately. It's the same principle as the chocolate bar trick.

>>52275349
a reference triangle based, but not identical to the top version, has an area of 13*5/2 = 32.5 area units.

The individual parts have areas consisting of 2*5/2, 3*8/2, 7, and 8. Sum these up and you get 5+12+7+8 = 32. Compared to the reference triangle, we are short .5 area units. And this is explained by >>52276156
The top "triangle" is pointing "inwards" and loses .5 area units compared to reference, and the bottom "triangle" is pointing "outwards", and would be .5 area units larger had the gap been filled in.

>>52276297
>>52276352
Wrong. The unequal slope explanation is correct

File: 1452113102401.jpg (50KB, 430x500px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 430x500px

>>52275349
your picture is misleading, pic related

>>52276346
>don't show the solution in order to look at people becoming crazy
that won't be necessary:
>>52276266
>>52276297
>>52276352
>>52276377
>>52276450

literally copy the images over to paint.net, fill one with other colors and lay them over each other reducing the transparency of the top layer slightly

they are not equal

>>52276496
So you are implying that little patch of JPG artifacts adds up to an entire rectangle in the grid? That's just plain false.

File: 1358824287290.png (48KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x500px

>>52276555
The outlines are made thicker to fool retards like you.

>>52276555

Not only is the top triangle concave, the bottom triangle is convex. Yes, it does add up to an entire square.

File: Missing_Square_Animation.gif (26KB, 318x126px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 318x126px

>>52276555

File: incredible-optical-illusions-whic-one-is-bigger-2gumd87[1].jpg (45KB, 632x389px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 632x389px

For those who don't think the slopes are different, what is the explanation of the missing rectangle? Personally I think they are messing with our perception due to moving the blocks around. I have counted the rectangles encompassing the figures, but they add up. It is like some illusion but I can't figure it out.

Like pic related, in which the yellow circle is actually of equal size, but due to relative sizing of its surrounding circles it tends to have a bigger visual impact when the circles surrounding it are smaller.

File: triangle.gif (37KB, 332x188px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 332x188px

Here's a gif comparison for you guys.
There's something sketchy going on with that wiggling line.

>>52276608
You can clearly see the grid moving, at least try to be subtle about it.

>>52276635
Can you speed it up?

File: triangle2.gif (37KB, 332x188px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 332x188px

>>52276659

A bit.
This is as fast as Photoshop allows the gifs to move.

>>52275349
It's quite obvious that the slope is now different.

File: ezgif-638984511[1].gif (38KB, 332x188px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 332x188px

>>52276673

>>52276529
Beat me to it

>>52276555
look at how stupid you are for defying me:
>>52276568
>>52276598
>>52276608
every one of these answers is correct you scrub now go back to >>>/trash/ where you belong

>>52276673
There's a noticeable wiggle on the hypotenuse

>>52276760
That's the point

>>52276723
Please align the images correctly. That wiggle is really pissing me off.

>>52276830
That's the point

>>52275349
The agenda is to make the human population believe that shit like the iPhone 7 is the apex of technology. I think you need to consider that the US and global government's keep humanity on a slow planned out feeding tube of technology because we clamor over it and so they make max profit for the longest and also it keeps people stupid and trances out in their distractions (iPhones)
The US govt specifically has such advanced technology that they prolong it's release because they think we can't handle it or we will use it against them

>>52275456
Exactly.
OP the US has had touchscreens since the 80s but there was no money in it yet

File: faggot triangles.png (17KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x400px

>>52276830
try this at home and you'll see the truth

>>52276444
Because they have the capability of recording video in 4k. I personally have no need for it but it's what the general population wants... more megapixels with the WiFi's (pronounced: weefees) lol

File: area.png (6KB, 650x250px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 650x250px

Here's what's going on.

If the top image were a true triangle it'd have an area of 32.5 but it's not a true triangle and it's area is only 32. But that still leaves .5 units unaccounted for from that block. The way it makes up for that .5 is by jutting out.

In pic related, the neon green part represents how much the bottom image grew out to make room for the blank square. If you were to measure the neon green part it'd be exactly 1 units^2.

As for processors and microarchitecture, we reached the barrier of the size of the atom. Single electron transistors can't get any smaller; the ones that they are developing that are only a few atoms thin break too easily if they overheat.

We need a second impact.

File: 1451273352702.png (28KB, 186x208px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 186x208px

>>52275349

>no cpu improvement
>what are power consumption

i have two laptops, one witha a amd 6410 and a t420 with a i5 2520m

the 6410 get the same score than the i5 BUT

using 15w instead of 35w from the i5

>>52277659
>the 6410 get the same score than the i5 BUT

In what benchmark?

>>52277689

cinebench r15

File: 1451085365735.jpg (59KB, 802x542px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 802x542px

>>52277659
>>52277725

forgot to mention that the 6410 tops at 55°c and the thinkpad its a fucking sun, already cleaned, changed thermal paste and even lowered the clockspeed to get it under 60°c average

>>52275349
Cause the jew wants to milk the old products for all they got

>>52275349
Why improve when the dumb goyim are willing to dine on shit?

>>52275986
Wow you are retarded. The point went right over you head.

>>52276156
This guy gets it, everyone how disagrees is a retard.

>>52277809
The "point" is based on a false premise and erroneous assumptions. There's really no paradox.

File: 1435379669596.gif (3MB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x300px

>>52276754
>look at how stupid you are for defying me

I lold

File: 7725357295.png (725KB, 861x927px) Image search: [Google]

725KB, 861x927px

>>52275720
There is no "big triangle" its a polygon with 4 then a second with 8 edges.
3/8 =|= 2/5

>>52275349
grid is slightly skewed
Measure the pixels

>>52275722
>airplane mode at night

but how do you know when that hotline bling?

>>52275349
Apart from transistor and other thingies smallerification, progress was always rather slow, I suspect.

>>52278196
>>52278141
>>52277853
>>52277839
>>52277488
>>52277421
>>52276723
>>52276673
>>52276635
>>52276628
>>52276608
>>52276529
>>52276496
>>52276478
>>52276450
>>52276377
>>52276266
>>52276194
>>52276156
>>52275986
>>52275720
All false

>>52278371
>being this retarded

>>52278371
I wasn't aware you could browse gee and not have eyes, how do you do it anon?

>>52278241
It only means one thing so I'm not too bothered

>>52277659
yo brother, share that folder.

>>52277765
Damn, that bone structure. I never noticed.

>>52275349
Rectangle things are stacked different

File: twotriangles2.png (11KB, 516x1200px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 516x1200px

a more visible example, with different numbers
but the principle is the same

>>52281062
Why do you argue about a paradox on 4chan?

>>52275349
>triangle
Euler knows the answer.

>>52276397
>All triangles are exactly the same
Red triangles are not the same.

>>52281091
retards are cute when they don't understand something

>>52278196
So, image lies when it claims that grid is linear.

File: ok.png (28KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 640x400px

>>52281387

File: hurr.gif (11KB, 527x528px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 527x528px

>>52275349

because the angles are different on the triangles.

basically 0.4 instead of 0.375

hard to notice and you wouldn't "get it" if your highest level of education was 9th grade.

File: ok.png (13KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 640x400px

>>52281443

>>52275349
It's kind of hard to see, but there's a very obtuse angle in what most would assume to be the "hypotenuse" of the top "triangle". It's actually a 4-sided polygon, with an angle slightly less than 180 degrees where the teal triangle and red triangle corners meet on the top polygon.

In other words the "hypotenuse" of the top triangle toes in a bit, so it has less area than it appears.

The bottom triangle is the opposite, that "hypotenuse" actually toes out, and the exact amount it toes out is equal to 1 unit square.

You'll see what I mean when you transpose both triangles ontop of one another.

>>52281374
So, grid is linear, but hypotenuse is not.

>>52281717
yes
the hypotenuse is two segments with a slight angle between them

>>52275349
the red square is a different size

>>52281481
winner

>>52277659
how many gigs is that folder

>inb4 TB

File: implying.jpg (14KB, 205x256px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 205x256px

>>52282122

Honestly innovation is dead these days. I think a lot of people are going to be surprised when in 20 years they just have faster computers and smartphones, but nothing else.

yeah i love listening to angry nerds rage over things

: /

>>52275349
Moores law doesn't hold anymore

>>52275780
It's not
Transistors are not getting doubled per square inch

People are just expanding moores law to other things for some reason

>posted bait 6 hours ago
>this thread is still going
How autistic is /g/?

>>52282768
It's not bait. Technology really is stagnating. When was the last time you were really excited for a new piece of technology? The only thing that may come to mind is VR and based off reactions today it looks like that's not going too well either.

>>52282809
I'm pretty damn excited about HSA-enabled APUs with hbm ram, and doubly so about c++amp being ported to GCC, clang, and Linux.

But Intel will probably jew like always and we'll be stuck with shitty processors with a ridiculous architecture and memory access order for another 2 decades.

You need conflict to generate a need for better tech

File: geogebra.png (39KB, 1255x484px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1255x484px

>>52278371

l e l
e l e
l e l

File: geogebra 2.png (49KB, 1256x485px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1256x485px

>>52284037
with the edges highlighted

>>52281989
Hypotenuse is infinite segments.