Indeed. And maybe in the ultimate way of "grass is greener", any random item from this list is something I'd much more want to work on than the things I actually do.
Materials science is one of the most fascinating and underrated fields. There's so much to discover with the elements on the periodic table, and so many applications from those discoveries.
Honestly it looks like it needs to be split into distinct subfields given that lengthy list. Materials is going to be a major driver of innovation bin the 21st century alongside renewable energy.
Best link I’ve ever seen on HN. It’s getting late now, but pouring hours into this and I haven’t even come close to 10%. So many interesting fields and ideas. I’m excited for some more fun reading this week. Thanks!
So wikipedia will happily delete things based on notability and such. How is it that this has escaped the cull?
It's not the type of thing I'd expect to find in wikipedia at all.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with technology X being in Wikipedia. Indeed I expect there to be a page, and it would probably be my first port of call for finding out more. My problem is with an editorialised list of 'Emerging Technologies'.
I'm not sure if there's any official policy around this, but to me it seems that lists often get a less-stringent treatment than other article types on Wikipedia.
Here's a sampling of some other interesting list articles:
Personally I'm a Wikipedia maximalist, it should record everything. They seem to have decided on a different path, partly on notability grounds, partly on the basis that its done elsewhere. That's fine as far as it goes but be consistent.
Lists make sense in a lot of contexts, lists of songs, albums, monarchs great. List of 'best' songs, 'greatest' monarchs, 'emerging' technologies, less so.
15 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 47.9 ms ] threadIt's not the type of thing I'd expect to find in wikipedia at all.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with technology X being in Wikipedia. Indeed I expect there to be a page, and it would probably be my first port of call for finding out more. My problem is with an editorialised list of 'Emerging Technologies'.
Here's a sampling of some other interesting list articles:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unusual_deaths
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_w...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ballooning_accidents
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_deities_by_cultural_s...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_colors
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_bisexual_people
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_road_junctions_in_the_...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_websites
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_teams_nicknamed...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_buns
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolves
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brand_name_condiments
And the all-time best:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists
I, for one, am happy these exist, despite the editorialization, etc.
Personally I'm a Wikipedia maximalist, it should record everything. They seem to have decided on a different path, partly on notability grounds, partly on the basis that its done elsewhere. That's fine as far as it goes but be consistent.
Lists make sense in a lot of contexts, lists of songs, albums, monarchs great. List of 'best' songs, 'greatest' monarchs, 'emerging' technologies, less so.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_pope...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions