| ▲ | analogpixel 11 hours ago |
| Why didn't Star Trek ever tackle the big issues, like them constantly updating the LCARS interface every few episodes to make it better, or having Geordi La Forge re-writing the warp core controllers in Rust? |
|
| ▲ | thaumaturgy 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Because, something that a lot of tech-obsessed Trek fans never seem to really come to terms with, is that Trek didn't fetishize technology. In the Trek universe, LCARS wasn't getting continuous UI updates because they would have advanced, culturally, to a point where they recognized that continuous UI updates are frustrating for users. They would have invested the time and research effort required to better understand the right kind of interface for the given devices, and then... just built that. And, sure, it probably would get updates from time to time, but nothing like the way we do things now. Because the way we do things now is immature. It's driven often by individual developers' needs to leave their fingerprints on something, to be able to say, "this project is now MY project", to be able to use it as a portfolio item that helps them get a bigger paycheck in the future. Likewise, Geordi was regularly shown to be making constant improvements to the ship's systems. If I remember right, some of his designs were picked up by Starfleet and integrated into other ships. He took risks, too, like experimental propulsion upgrades. But, each time, it was an upgrade in service of better meeting some present or future mission objective. Geordi might have rewritten some software modules in whatever counted as a "language" in that universe at some point, but if he had done so, he would have done extensive testing and tried very hard to do it in a way that wouldn't've disrupted ship operations, and he would only do so if it gained some kind of improvement that directly impacted the success or safety of the whole ship. Really cool technology is a key component of the Trek universe, but Trek isn't about technology. It's about people. Technology is just a thing that's in the background, and, sometimes, becomes a part of the story -- when it impacts some people in the story. |
| |
| ▲ | cons0le 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >Because the way we do things now is immature. It's driven often by individual developers' needs to leave their fingerprints on something, to be able to say, "this project is now MY project", to be able to use it as a portfolio item that helps them get a bigger paycheck in the future. AKA resume-driven development. I personally know several people working on LLM products, where in private they admit they think LLMs are scams | |
| ▲ | jfengel 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Most of Trek's tech is just a way to move the story along. Transporters were introduced to avoid having to land a shuttle. Warp drive is just a way to get to the next story. Communicators relay plot points. Stories which focus on them as technology are nearly always boring. "Oh no the transporter broke... Yay we fixed it". | |
| ▲ | PunchyHamster 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That's fetishizing Star Trek a bit - they had touch interface for controlling the ship in middle of combat, explosions and everything shaking around which is hardly optimal, both on and off combat (imagine levitating hand across touch panel for hours at end) | |
| ▲ | amelius 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I still wonder why not everybody was lingering in the holodeck all the time. (equivalent of people being glued to their smartphones today) (Related) This is one explanation for the Fermi paradox: Alien species may isolate themselves in virtual worlds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox | | |
| ▲ | d3Xt3r 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Most likely because this was a star ship (or space station) with a limited number of personnel, all of whom have fixed duties that need to be done. You simply can't afford to waste your time away in holodecks. The people we saw on screen most of the time also held important positions on the ship (especially the bridge, or engineering) and you can't expect them to just waste significant chunks of time. Also, don't forget that these people actually like their jobs. They got there because they sincerely wanted to, out of personal interest and drive, and not because of societal pressures like in our present world. They already figured out universal basic income and are living in an advanced self-sufficient society, so they don't even need a job to earn money or live a decent life - these people are doing their jobs because of their pure, raw passion for that field. | | |
| ▲ | Telaneo 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Also, holodecks are limited in number. Voyager had two, and during one episode where the plot point was that they were in an area of space with literally nothing, the holodecks were in such high demand they had to schedule time there so everybody got a bit each. With Voyager having 150~ people onboard, I can easily imagine that sucking. The Enterprise had more holodecks (4-6~?), but with around 1000 people onboard, if they were in the same situation of there being nothing to do, the Holodecks would probably have been equally crowded. |
| |
| ▲ | RedNifre 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The lack of capitalism meant that the holodeck program authors had no need to optimize their programs for user retention to show them more ads. So much fewer people suffer from holodeck addiction in Star Trek than are glued to their screens in our world. | | |
| ▲ | XorNot 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Although the funniest thing about the holodeck these days is LLMs have answered a question: can you have realistic non-sentient avatars? Evidently yes, and holodeck authorship is likely a bunch of prompt engineering, with really advanced stuff happening when someone trains a new model or something. Similarly in Stat Wars with droids: Obi-Wan is right, droids can't think and deserve no real moral consideration because they're just advanced language models in bodies (C3PO insisting on proper protocol because he's a protocol droid is the engineering attempt to keep the LLM on track). |
|
| |
| ▲ | 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | dragonwriter 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > In the Trek universe, LCARS wasn't getting continuous UI updates In the Trek universe, LCARS was continuously generating UI updates for each user, because AI coding had reached the point that it no longer needs specific direction, and it responds autonomously to needs the system itself identifies. | |
| ▲ | bena 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | LCARS was technically a self-adapting system that was personalized to a degree per user. So it was continuously updating itself. But in a way to reduce user frustration. Now, this is really because LCARS is "Stage Direction: Riker hits some buttons and stuff happens". | |
| ▲ | lo_zamoyski 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > continuous UI updates are frustrating for users […] It's driven often by individual developers' needs to leave their fingerprints on something, to be able to say, "this project is now MY project", to be able to use it as a portfolio item that helps them get a bigger paycheck in the future. Yes, although users also judge updates by what is apparent. Imagine if OS UIs didn’t change and you had to pay for new versions. So I’m sure UI updates are also partly motivated by a desire to signal improvements. | |
| ▲ | Mistletoe 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Isn't it probably just that they don't really have money in Star Trek so there is no contract promising amazing advances in the LCARS if we just pay this person or company to revamp it? If someone has money to be made from something they will always want to convince you the new thing is what you need. | | |
| ▲ | krapp 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Remember that in Star Trek humans have evolved beyond the desire to work for money or personal gain, so everyone just volunteers their time, and somehow this just always works. |
| |
| ▲ | krapp 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >In the Trek universe, LCARS wasn't getting continuous UI updates because they would have advanced, culturally, to a point where they recognized that continuous UI updates are frustrating for users. Not to be "that guy" but LCARS wasn't getting continuous UI updates because that would have cost the production team money and for TNG at least would have often required rebuilding physical sets. It does get updated between series because as part of setting the design language for that series. And Geordi was shown constantly making improvements to the ship's systems because he had to be shown "doing engineer stuff." |
|
|
| ▲ | Findecanor 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I have often thought that Star Trek is supposed to show a future in which computer technology and user interfaces have evolved to a steady state that don't need to change that much, and which is superior to our own in ways that we don't yet understand. And because it hasn't been invented yet, the show does not invent it either. It is for the audience to imagine that those printed transparencies back-lit with light bulbs behind coloured gel are the most intuitive, easy to use, precise user interfaces that the actors pretend that they are. |
|
| ▲ | RedNifre 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because the LCARS GUI is only for simple recurring tasks, so it's easy to find an optimal interface. Complex tasks are done vibe coding style, like La Forge vibe video editing a recording to find an alien: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Faiu360W7Q I do wonder if conversational interfaces will put an end to our GUI churn eventually... |
| |
| ▲ | PunchyHamster 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Conversational interfaces are slow and will still be slow even if AI latency will be zero. It might be nice way for making complex, one off tasks by personnel unfamiliar with all the features of the system, but for fast day to day stuff, button per function will always be a king. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | calmbonsai 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Trek needs to visibly "sci-fi-up" extant tech in order to have the poetic narrative license to tell its present-day parables. Things just need to "look futuristic". The don't actually need to have practical function outside whatever narrative constraints are imposed in order to provide pace and tension to the story. I forget who said it first, but "Warp is really the speed of plot". |
| |
| ▲ | PunchyHamster 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Case in point - nobody sensible would put realtime ship controls on a touchscreen if the designed use of it was combat or complex human driven manoeuvrers. | | |
| ▲ | calmbonsai an hour ago | parent [-] | | I always laughed at the "fixed-position" rotatable laptop equivalents https://legendary-digital-network-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/wp... that were on people's desks as if somehow a single physical desktop location would work for everyone--let alone aliens. In truth, that was due to having a fixed sight-line and focal distance to the camera so any post-production LCARS effects could be matched-moved to the action and any possible alternative lighting conditions. Offhand, I can't think of any explicit digital match-moving shots, but I'm certain that's the reason. As pointed out in that infamous Red Letter Media video, all the screens on the bridge ended up casting too much glare so they very blatantly used gaffer tape on them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzJqarYU5Io . :) |
|
|
|
| ▲ | rzerowan 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Mostly i believe its that the writers envisioned and were able to wrldbuildinsucha way that the tech was not a subject but was rather a part of the scenery/background with the main object being the people and their relationships.
Additionally in some cases where alien tech was interfaced with the characters inthe storysome UI/code rewites were written in, for example in DS9 where the Cardassian interfaces/AI are frustrating to Chief O'Brien and his efforts to remedy/upgrade such gets a recurring role in the story. Conversly recent versions have taken the view of foregrounding tech aidied with flashy CGI to handwave through a lot.Basically using it as a plot device when the writing is weak. |
|
| ▲ | JuniperMesos 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Man, I should hope that the warp core controllers on the USS Enterprise were not written in C. On the other hand, if the writers of Star Trek The Next Generation were writing the show now, rather than 35-40 years ago - and therefore had a more expansive understanding of computer technology and were writing for an audience that could be relied upon to understand computers better than was actually the case - maybe there would've been more episodes involving dealing with the details of Future Sci-Fi Computer Systems in ways a programmer today might find recognizable. Heck, maybe this is in fact the case for the recently-written episodes of Star Trek coming out in the past few years (that seem to be much less popular than TNG, probably because the entire media environment around broadcast television has changed drastically since TNG was made). Someone who writes for television today is more likely to have had the experience of taking a Python class in middle school than anyone writing for television decades ago (before Python existed), and maybe something of that experience might make it into an episode of television sci-fi. As an additional point, my recollection is that the LCARS interface did in fact look slightly different over time - in early TNG seasons it was more orange-y, and in later seasons/Voyager/the TNG movies it generally had more of a purple tinge. Maybe we can attribute this in-universe to a Federation-wide UX redesign (imagine throwing in a scene where Barclay and La Forge are walking down a corridor having a friendly argument about whether the new redesign is better or worse immediately before a Red Alert that starts the main plot of the episode!). From a television production standpoint, we can attribute this to things like "the set designers were actually trying to suggest the passage of time and technology changing in the context of the show", or "the set designers wanted to have fun making a new thing" or "over the period of time that the 80s/90s incarnations of Star Trek were being made, television VFX technology itself was advancing rapidly and people wanted to try out new things that were not previously possible" - all of which have implications for real-world technology as well as fake television sci-fi technology. |
| |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > recently-written episodes of Star Trek coming out in the past few years (that seem to be much less popular than TNG, probably because the entire media environment around broadcast television has changed drastically since TNG was made) That's probably part of it. But the larger part is that new Star Trek is very poorly written, so why is anyone going to bother watching it? |
|
|
| ▲ | AndrewKemendo 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Because it’s a fantasy space opera show that has nothing to do with reality |