Charles Stross asks about blind spots in subject matter for science fiction. The posting itself is worth a read, and the over 500 comments are worth a browse just as much.
So I’m watching the live stream of the Indie Web Summit, and all of a sudden after some tech talk they invite William Hertling to the stage to talk about his book Kill Process. The book is about decentralised platforms and indieweb applications, in response to silos that become abusive to their users. I just started reading that book this week (having read his other works). Serendipity. Also another example of how near future SF, such as e.g. Walkaway, and current tech dev are mutually influencing each other.
I appreciate the work of science fiction author Charles Stross a lot (his blog is here). At the 34th Chaos Communication Conference (which took place in December in Leipzig, Germany) he gave an interesting presentation. He isn’t much of a presenter, reading from his notes, so go read the transcript that he posted (the video is online as well). With some deserved criticism of the singularity, and corporations as 19th century slow AI, as context blind single purpose algorithms.
And on how exploring the (near) future as SF is becoming more and more difficult:
“My recipe for fiction set ten years in the future used to be 90% already-here, 9% not-here-yet but predictable, and 1% who-ordered-that. But unfortunately the ratios have changed. I think we’re now down to maybe 80% already-here—climate change takes a huge toll on infrastructure—then 15% not-here-yet but predictable, and a whopping 5% of utterly unpredictable deep craziness.”