Whether big or small. We all have that one thing from Scifi we wished were real. I’d love to see a cool underground city with like a SkyDome or a space hotel for instance.

    • astanix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      As long as shareholder value is the number one thing it just cant happen.

      • rudyharrelson@lemmy.radio
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        54 minutes ago

        OP says, “with our current current level of technology.”

        We have the technology to overcome any logistics issue pertaining to eliminating scarcity (and by extension, poverty). What we lack is the societal structure.

  • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Here is something we don’t have that I think we could: Automated vegetable farming.

    I’ve seen these watering gantries that are fixed at the center of a circular field and then rotate radially around that point to water the field. Could you use that as a rail with an effector arm on it that can plant, weed, tend, fertilize and harvest the field, such that in goes seeds and out comes vegetables? Without the liability of free roaming robotic tractors and combine harvesters. Surely the issue here would be software.

  • brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Augmented reality overlaying historical photos and 3d models so you can literally see history as your walking.

    Imagine being able to visit The White City that was built for the World’s Fair in Chicago. Or seeing New York before sky scrapers dominated the landscape.

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I can see replacing cash with transfers but not removing currency entirely, but that’s my POV. What would you replace it with instead?

      • Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 hours ago

        What would you replace it with instead?

        Nothing. Humanity as a whole would have to evolve past the carrot and stick mentality for this to work. That’s why I said it probably won’t happen 😅

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I’m on board with ethical and opt-in telemetry. Knowing how your users interact with your app is very useful, but not many companies can show restraint when money is involved.

      • weirdbeardgame@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        100% this. Telemetry and market research are fine. Hell Some opt in, totally 100% disableable targeted ads are fine as long as they’re not excessive and in the way. Flagrant selling of info however, does not spark joy.

  • HubertManne@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I would just like complete control of my various web things. be able to restrict banking activity by source (so like lock my savings to only move between my checking and no where else), be able to make temporary credit card numbers that I can not only limit the amount of a single charge but max total that can be charged and daily charge and monthly charge and also be able to limit it to one payer. So like I make it and use it to pay for something than can go back and click on the the vendor payed and say lock it to only that vendor. Have an investment account where I can setup a variety of investments by percentage and have it keep those percentages as markets move. oh and have a local location for all my things where you can get any help including for their website although thats not exactly technology.

    • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      For the credit card thing, there used to be an app called Private that you could set up temporary numbers with. I think you could do some level of recurring payments with it too. Not sure it’s it’s been enshittified yet though

      • HubertManne@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        oh I guess I have to add all without apps. Some of this stuff even then exists to some degree but its kinda sad its not implemented just generally. There is so much computers could do but there just is no incentive to maximize customer capability. If anything they tend to look to monetize any feature or limit it in a way to make it shitty or make money for the company outside of their normal streams. Like schwab has this robo adviser but its way limited and forces you to keep a lot in cash yet at the same time is very slow to rebalance (the reasoning they give for the cash is to deal with rebalancing which should allow it to do it relatively quickly.)

        • lapping6596@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          By the way, app is called privacy. Biggest problem with it is that it uses plaid to connect to your bank so you have to trust them with your bank password.

          I use it though and love it. Every card can have its own limits like per transaction, per month, per year, or total ever.

  • cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    10 hours ago

    The viewscreen from Star Trek. It’s actually real but nobody really wants to use it.

    Phones, tablets, and laptops have had video chat for years. Apple brought it to actual TV a couple years ago. The idea is you use the Apple TV set-top box, and you get a squared-S-shaped clip that mounts an iPhone to the top of a TV so the rear camera array can point out into the room. You pair the two, and your whole TV turns into a viewscreen, just like on the starship Enterprise.

    I’ve explained this to a few people and the reaction is usually “okay why TF would I wanna do that?” So imagine a Thanksgiving or Christmas, or other “big family holiday” thing where you have that one person who won’t participate because it’s their partner’s family’s turn to see the kids or whatever… so, the Apple TV is like $100. And somebody is gonna have an iPhone. And these days, everyone has a TV, at least in the west, and they’re 55" or bigger. So you get the TV in the corner of the room and you set it up so you’re broadcasting the whole living room and maybe part of the kitchen or dining room, and you connect it to another family/part of the family who is doing the same. And your TV is now a window into that other living room, and people can go up to the screen and interact, or wave from across the room. Now if it’s like Thanksgiving and it’s based around eating, you could even run the end of the table up to the TV (so the TV is basically sat at one end of the table with no one in between) on both sides so when you look down the table, you’re looking into that other room.

    • blarghly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I feel like the end result here would be saying hi like a normal phone call, and then kind of awkwardly ignoring and avoiding the tv for the rest of the night. All the problems with video conferencing, but multiplied.

      • cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Right, business, and using tech most consumers don’t have. So that is definitely a thing. What I’m saying is, most families have access to it with consumer grade stuff.

    • dmention7@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I’ve thought the same thing, Trying to hold a video call between families using a phone or even a laptop is such an awkward experience, especially if you want to just hang out virtually for an extended time like you said.

      But it wouldn’t even have to involve a separate box or docked phone. Everyone’s got a smart TV that can run apps, so all it should take is a USB webcam with a decent far-field mic.

      But yeah, in general I’m surprised this isn’t more of a common use case.

      • cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        In theory that should work if the app can access a USB port on the TV and use the webcam. I haven’t heard of it being done though. The Apple solution works and it’s intended to be used like that.

        But really, a lot of smart TVs run Android and Android has a surprising amount of supported devices (I suppose due to it basically being Linux). I bet you could hook a DVD burner up to an Android phone, and I’m sure a third party file manager could read files off a disc. Burning though? Should be possible but you’d need an app to talk to the DVD writer. And that, I’ve never heard of. You’d think a webcam would be easier but I think the software stack in an Android phone would only use its internal cameras without an app. The camera app for example is only going to look at the installed ones. It doesn’t know to look at the USB interface for more. But a third party camera app might.

        I have a USB C hub and I do have an old Android phone (Galaxy S10, 2019). I do not have a webcam or DVD writer though.

        That said, now that I think about it, if you hook a Samsung phone — not sure about others — up to a TV with USB C to HDMI, it kinda becomes a little desktop computer with the TV as monitor. I wonder, if you initiated a video chat, if you could do it with just a Samsung phone. Or really any phone that will display mirror to a TV.

      • blarghly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        The problem it that sound is limited in physical space, so you can move around a room, talking to one person and then another.

        Your proposal is like getting two groups of people to stand on opposite sides of a room and then communicate by shouting at each other.

        • dmention7@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Think of it like two groups of people in separate rooms with a large open window between them. Not everyone is trying to talk one on one to the other group all the time. And sometimes just feeling like you’re in the same physical space can be nice.

          It’s not perfect, but in many circumstances it’s worlds better than having tiny portable windows that mostly facilitate one on one conversation.

          • blarghly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            A one on one conversation sounds far preferrable to what you are describing. There would be far too much crosstalk.

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Finding a way to use organic matter in 3d printing so I can say “Computer…one strawberry milkshake”, similar to Picard.