LogFAQs > #922030267

It's not unthinkable. I would have to live to 111 but some people live several years longer. Just s few years ago we still had a handful of people alive who were born before 1900.

But anyway, I don't anticipate 2100 being that advanced. At least not from an average civilian's perspective. Different in fashion, sure, but if I simply extrapolate my last 30 years over the next 81, nothing has really changed except for quantites, so not a lot would be expected to change tbh except for quantities.

In '89, we more or less had Internet, though the standards weren't as sophisticated yet, we had video games, we had cameras, we sent data wirelessly, we had digitized all forms of media, etc. etc.

We still don't know how to cure cancer, we still haven't done anything new in space (just done it farther away), cars still don't fly, etc. etc.

The only differences were your camera, telephone and transceiver weren't all the same device, it took longer and was harder to download stuff, and you had like a thousandth the terrible opinions and trivial information drowning you at all times.

GPS is big, 3D printing is medium, and the driverless car will be good if they ever f***ing roll them out on a large scale, which I'm frankly starting to lose hope for.

Military technology has made great strides but don't expect to see civil laser cannons or lightning guns. And I'm sure medicine has made awesome strides but the average civilian doesn't know or have any reason to care.

Sure, they're gonna make new stuff but it'll mostly just increase download speeds or whatever. I have no idea why on Earth people make futuristic fiction and put hilariously short timeframes on it that we miss by decades if not centuries every single time.
---

53 LIII 0b110101
p16 0x35