Artists including themselves in their art was also common during the renaissance. Da Vinci apparently included himself in his painting Adoration of the Magi (https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/adoration-of-the-mag..., see figure on the bottom right).
Somebody will write the 999th version and gleefully call it vim, but then somebody will correct them, saying "actually technically it's supposed to be vcmxcix"
It's pretty impossible to say isn't it? Not everything doesn't last/changes fundamentally.
I would think there's a version of 2920 in which nothing changed so much in how computers work (e.g. we're not using personal quantum computers) that we're not still using Linux (v87.9.2 or something).
But there's equally another version in which we don't need to sit down and compute because things just happen and even those things aren't run from Linux robots because the robots we built 500 years from now decided a microkernel approach would be better and rewrote everything. Another in which we live on Mars and Linux doesn't work there for some reason discovered 320 years from now.
I just think it's not obvious the answer's 'none' which is at least how I read (what I took to be) your rhetorical question.
20 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 61.1 ms ] threadhttps://www.museodelprado.es/en/the-collection/art-work/las-...
Update: Click on the hamburger and you can send feedback!
We’re close to 2038 than to 2000 ( Y2K ).
I would think there's a version of 2920 in which nothing changed so much in how computers work (e.g. we're not using personal quantum computers) that we're not still using Linux (v87.9.2 or something).
But there's equally another version in which we don't need to sit down and compute because things just happen and even those things aren't run from Linux robots because the robots we built 500 years from now decided a microkernel approach would be better and rewrote everything. Another in which we live on Mars and Linux doesn't work there for some reason discovered 320 years from now.
I just think it's not obvious the answer's 'none' which is at least how I read (what I took to be) your rhetorical question.