Some of it is lack of imagination, but some of it is because many truly visionary examples would largely sound stupid to most of today's audience. Imagine it's 2007 and you're explaining how the smartphone will change society over the next 20 years:
- A photo sharing app will change restaurants, public spaces, and the entire travel industry across the world
- The smartphone will bring about regime change in Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, and other countries in ~4 years
- We'll replace taxis and hotels by getting rides and sharing homes with strangers
- Billions of people across the world will never need to own a desktop or laptop
None of these actually were hard to sell. In 2007 we had mobile phones, we had mp3 players (the iPod was actually very good), we had CouchSurfing, etc.
I think the smart phone revolution is actually pretty overstated. It basically only made computers cheaper and handier to carry (but also more walled gardens). There are a few capabilities of smart phones we do today which we didn’t with do with computers and mobile phones back in 2007, such as navigation (GPS were a thing but not used much by the general public).
Your case would be much stronger if you’d use the World Wide Web as your analogy, as in 1995 it would by hard to convince anybody how important it would be to maintain a web presence. And nobody would guess a social media like the irc would blow up into something other then a toy.
However I think the analogy with smartphones are actually more apt, this AI revolution has made statistical models more accessible, but we are only using them for things we were already capable of before, and unlike the web, and much like smartphones, I don’t think that will actually change. But unlike smartphones, it will always be cheaper and often even easier to use the alternatives.
Even the navigation part, I'm not so sure. I remember Dad would bring a laptop when we would drive new places and it would be running Microsoft Streets and Trips with a GPS dongle, and I think that have been late 90s or early 00s. I remember seeing other people do that and by the time I was driving a lot in 07 I remember having a dash mounted GPS, maybe a Magellan or Garmin, that didn't cost that much and again I remember a lot of people doing it. The smartphone definitely displaced it, but it wasn't a complete novelty even for the general public.
I think you lived in a strange bubble when you were a kid. When I was a teenager in the 90s, we'd have paper maps that we'd bring with us. We had no GPS. I don't think we knew what GPS was.
In the late 90s we'd print out directions from MapQuest. That was a game-changer. Still no GPS, though.
As an adult in the early 00s, I was still printing out MapQuest maps. In 2004 I got a car with a built-in navigation system! (Complete with a DVD drive in the trunk with a disc holding the maps.) It was still incredibly uncommon; I was one of the few people I knew who had one. I did know a few people who had Garmin GPS devices that they'd suction-cup to their windshield, but not many.
By 2007 most people were aware of GPS devices with little screens that you could bring into the car, though I'd guess maybe 25% of the drivers I knew then had one.
If your dad was bringing a laptop with a GPS dongle in the car in the 90s, I think you were very unusual. Hell, I didn't even have a laptop until 2004, and even then it was a hand-me-down from my dad's work. And I was in my 20s by then!
I remember GPS being something mountaineers had. People who would take their jeeps up to the glacier had them. Boats also had them. Coincidentally I was a fisherman back then and did observe my captain using a super fancy navigation device with an interactive map (and yes the map did come on a DVD); I also knew a couple of jeep men (or jeppakarlar as we call them in Icelandic) who had something similar (though more compact) in their jeeps; and to top it of, I would spend hours on google earth, just having fun looking at the map on my desktop.
I however did not see this technology coming to our phones, and becoming this commonplace.
It has been a day since I wrote the upthread post, and navigation is still the only novel capability of smartphones, which I think would have been a hard sell in 2007. I really can‘t think of another example.
> I however did not see this technology coming to our phones, and becoming this commonplace.
I didn't see a lot of things coming to phones. I never expected that I'd pay for things by hovering my phone over a payment terminal. Didn't think it would replace my iPod (or MP3 CD player, or Discman, or Walkman). Absolutely had no idea it would replace my camera.
And on the other side of the coin... my "phone" is barely a phone. The phone features are probably what I like least about it.
Booking, boarding, change/gate notifications, rebooking options, customs and immigration is done via phone.
Transit to/from the airport via Uber or a transit pass stored in your smartphone wallet.
Baggage tracking via airtags
Yeah, there's vague precedents for this stuff from the desktop computer era, but it only _really_ works when you've got an internet-connected device in your pocket.
Ahhh, payment via phones is also a new thing that I think very few people saw coming (including me). However it is also a very recent development and not really a part of the supposed smartphone revolution. In 2007 we did not have touchless payments (except in some public transit systems; gyms; etc. but it was limited to a special cards you couldn’t use for anything else) so this is definitely a new capability which was probably hard to sell in 2007.
The others you mentions, I would argue against. Yes it is convenient to order a taxi via an app on your phone, but in 2007 you could do so via SMS or a phone call, so not much has change really other then we now have one more interface to pick from.
I don’t see how smartphones have changed rebooking, nor customs, and especially not immigration which has become 100x more of a headache then it was in 2007. And finally, airtags are a separate technology from smartphones.
Hand-waving away ride-sharing as not much of a change makes me wonder what you would actually consider to be significant. It completely upended the taxi business.
2007: arrive in a new city, figure out who to call (or maybe text) for that particular city, wait, hope someone will pick you up and understand enough of your language and the local geography to get you where you want to go, possibly some unpleasant haggling over the fare
2026: arrive in a new city/country, open Uber, specify in the app precisely where you want to go, choose a vehicle, when to get picked up, etc, track vehicle progress in real-time, up-front pricing
And that's the consumer side. The provider side was even more radically changed.
If you don't see how smartphones changed the experience of flying... maybe you don't fly anywhere?
Airtags are entirely dependent on the ubiquity of smartphones.
I have already said navigation and tuchless payments are worthy examples of smartphones providing new and unpredictable innovations.
Your ride sharing experience sound more like you would expect from any consumer product gaining a global market share (or even monopoly). 1980 - Arrive in a new city and not knowing how to get a hamburger. 2000 - Arrive in a new city, find the nearest McDonalds and get your usual BigMac.
> arrive in a new city/country, open Uber, specify in the app precisely where you want to go, choose a vehicle, when to get picked up, etc, track vehicle progress in real-time, up-front pricing
This is actually something we should be a little uncomfortable about. It's a fine example of monopolists at work. The convenience does come with downsides.
I do like it, though, for exactly the reasons you state. If I end up in a country with cabbies who generally have good English skills and aren't out to rip me off, it's fine, and often easier to take a taxi. But you never know until you get there, and that can be stressful. The consistent Uber/Lyft experience is a breath of fresh air after a long flight when you just want to get to your lodging and pass out.
> If you don't see how smartphones changed the experience of flying... maybe you don't fly anywhere?
Eh, I'm not convinced. Sure, it's changed, but the general paradigm is the same. The main big change is the mobile boarding pass, seamlessly delivered after checking in on your phone, which is a genuine improvement. (But so many airlines still require you to check in with a human at the airport for international travel.) Print-at-home does come close enough, though, and still means you avoid lines at kiosks or (gasp) waiting for a real person to print you a boarding pass. Some airlines now charge you to print out your boarding pass (because of the availability of mobile passes), and that's disgusting. (I know people who still insist on printing at home, because they've had bad experiences around their boarding passes refusing to load, app crashing at exactly the wrong time, etc.)
Yes, all the airlines have apps, though after traveling a bit in Central America and in the Balkans recently, I've found that some airline apps are absolute trash, worse than having to wait in line for an hour to talk to a person. Most of my digital interaction with the airline is done on my laptop before the trip anyway. Notifications about gate information or delays are useful, but a push notification from an app is not markedly better than an SMS, and either way I always feel like I need to verify on a physical departures board, especially if connection timing is tight.
In instances where my flight has been delayed or cancelled, it's definitely an improvement to be able to rebook in the app, instead of waiting in line to talk to someone, or getting on the phone with the airline (or both, as I'd usually do, to find out which would resolve the problem faster).
I've never used airtags (don't have an iPhone anyway); I've checked bags at most twice in the past 20 years when I had no other choice (my mantra: checked luggage is lost luggage). But even considering that, I feel like all the fuss people make about airtagging their luggage is overblown.
Some airlines have eliminated seat-back entertainment and expect you to use your phone. That's crap.
Meanwhile, as GP has pointed out, security, customs, immigration have all gotten worse. Boarding processes have not improved, food hasn't gotten better, and airplane seat comfort has gone down. I say this not to blame smartphones, but to suggest that there are other, more important problems with air travel that have nothing to do with phones.
Who stops and looks for a physical departures board in 2026? I already know the gate I'm going to because I've had ample time to check my smartphone while I'm waiting for all the carry-on maximalists to get their oversized roller AND stuffed "personal item" backpack from the overhead bins. ;)
I think you've understated/missed some of the aspects of flying itself, but probably not necessary to litigate it further. There's also all the stuff at the destination that the smartphone has enabled, eg
- rental cars with carplay
- walking directions on a paired smartwatch
- transit pass via NFC (and transit-specific directions)
- checking into accomodations (airbnb-type places especially)
- authenticating Netflix, etc on tv at your airbnb/hotel
- bike-sharing apps
- activity passes in your digital wallet
I used to have PDAs with Windows Mobile, hmm even a BlackBerry. Oh gosh, navigation apps were absolutely crap back then, screens were crap, cameras were crap. Video calls via "3g", if any of your friends/family also had a 3g-capable phone, maybe it worked, experience you couldn't compare to FaceTime. iPhone/Android, really brought a new life into this ecosystem.
Camera phones were already very popular in 2007. The Flight of the Concords even made a joke out of it. But most people still owned a separate digital camera. It was not hard to predict that the cameras on your phone would get better and eventually replace your dedicated digital cameras. We all saw that coming.
Same with video calls, if anything that idea was oversold in 2007. Most people had Skype (or something similar) and would video call international calls (which were very expensive using the regular phone lines back then). If you were traveling internationally you would find an internet café log in to your Skype and make a call. Moving this capability to the smart phone was a no-brainier. Turns out that when we have it in our phones, video calls are still more popular on desktops (via zoom, etc.) in 2026.
- A nation-agnostic online currency (and its offshoots) would lead to a multi-polar world.
- Publicly waving your resume around will passively invite job interviews.
There's a new OpenClaw adaptation, Ottie, that I think could be a bank manager, bank teller, stockbroker, piggy bank, accountant, wallet, security guard and credit card provider all rolled into one. I just haven't used it yet. https://ottie.xyz/
So that would be:
- Digital sidekick weeds out parasitic relationships.
There has to be tremendous value in that.
When solutions are looking for problems, it means that things may seem oversold when in fact they are still undersold.
Instagram
Arabian spring
Uber
Airbnb
Cloud-ification/shift to web apps and mobile-first
....tiktok? Or is YouTube considered "short video sharing app"? Because I see no evidence tiktok in particular killing TV...
To be fair, QR code did hit print magazines/newspapers in Germany (just as an example; English wiki was not elaborating on initial history of public use/perception) in late 2007, so that one wasn't nearly as far-fetched.
I think you may have missed the original commenter's point. Residents (and medical students) are highly incentivized to publish unrealistic numbers of papers and case reports. One case report doesn't cut it—you need literally dozens of publications to match into some of the most competitive residency and fellowship programs. The NRMP (match organizer) publishes a document every 2 years that summarizes all of these stats. The 2024 version is in the link below, and page 12 supports what I'm saying.
This is another example of Goodhart's law in action, right?
Weirdly Pediatrics (chart 7) skews the other way (less publications tended to get into residency programs)? Are those doctors/administrators/programs somehow seeing through the nonsense?
How can you determine whether it's as good as Opus 4.5 within minutes of release? The quantitative metrics don't seem to mean much anymore. Noticing qualitative differences seems like it would take dozens of conversations and perhaps days to weeks of use before you can reliably determine the model's quality.
Just look at the testimonials at the bottom of introduction page, there are at least a dozen companies such as Replit, Cursor, and Github that have early access. Perhaps the GP is an employee of one of these companies.
Yes, you could early-detect something, but the likelihood of this thing being life-threatening are extremely low. If you choose to manage this thing aggressively anyway, you have to undergo more invasive testing (e.g., biopsies, surgery, anesthesia, etc.) that all have small risks of catastrophic events. In most cases, the risks of more invasive testing outweigh the risks of just not pursuing any further workup.
Nothing in medicine comes for free—everything is a tradeoff.
Interesting how Stratechery (Ben Thompson) is #15 in the last 5 years but not even top 100 in 2025. Similar with Julia Evans: #5 in the last 5 years but not in the 2025 top 100.
With Julia Evans, it's mainly due to her blogging less. She only published six blog posts in 2025, but five of them reached the front page.[0] By comparison, in 2020, when she was #11th most popular, she had 17 new blog posts on the front page plus 5 old ones.[1] Her site makes it kind of hard to count her total posts in 2020 by eyeballing it, but it looks like she published about 50+ new posts that year.
HN is very fickle with blog authors, adopting certain people basically as their own. If the authors participate here it leads to a protective instinct among many.
And I get it. It is a sense of community, belonging, and so on.
But at the same time it's groupism and means that often mediocre, lazy content[^1] has an easy path to the front page, and if you dare counter or question it, the crowd will defensively strike out. It's like sharing the karaoke of a family member and crowing about it.
It's more kuro5hin than Hacker News, and honestly it's something I wish this community didn't do as it often makes the front page more noisy than signal.
[^1]: In no way am I saying all content from those regulars fits that bill, but there are many cases where this stuff is #1 and if it was from any random other blogger it would have rolled off of new without a single upvote.
From the other side, I’ve fairly often written blog posts that I don’t put much effort into and have no intention of reaching the front page of HN, only to see 12 hours later that somebody submitted it and it’s on the front page.
I realize this sounds like a humblebrag but it is not a positive thing for me to have every single thing I write submitted to HN whether it’s relevant to a broad audience or not.
This is somewhat true; I know I'm trained at least a tiny bit to look over at the 'byline' on posts if the title attracts my attention...
But it's also muted a bit by the fact there are no icons, no large flashy attention-grabbing bits, and everyone gets the same muted colors for domain and submitter username.
I like that a lot, and contrast it often, in my mind, with Reddit, which now has user avatars, little flashy icons, an annoying habbit of pushing 'full' posts and ads everywhere...
All 100% true, it is more muted, but another effect that happens is that when a source is a sure thing on HN, it's self-reinforcing. People start watching those sites for new entries and submit them, and HN's automatic behaviour is that if you submit an entry that already exists, it just upvotes the existing entry.
Get dozens of people watching the hot blogs for content, each running to submit it, and in an instant it's to the front page and the reinforcement redoubles.
This sounds super cool and useful to me, but how does this work with a partner who's non-technical? Managing personal finances is something that we do together and having a nice clean UI that makes sense to her is important. Is there a way to achieve that with beancount? Currently we're using YNAB, which is mostly great although sometimes unstable and limited in ways.
My wife is non-technical and doesn't know anything about bookkeeping. Every-ish day I ask her for receipts and enter them into our ledger-cli file. She mostly uses her debit card, so it's usually easy not to miss too much. (I use cash exclusively, so it's more of a conscious effort for me.) Every month I send her a monthly report via email.
I created a little app that tracks the cash spending that I can export with a CSV file. You can host it yourself. I had no idea that my wife was using so much cash!
I think you're missing the point of the post, which I actually also initially missed based on the misleading title. The author isn't saying that the camera app activating the camera and green light is a problem. The author is saying that he's unknowingly activating the camera app by simply touching the app icon, which in turn activates the green light and makes him think something nefarious is going on. However, this is a false positive that can contribute to alert fatigue and cause users to entirely ignore the green light.
- A photo sharing app will change restaurants, public spaces, and the entire travel industry across the world
- The smartphone will bring about regime change in Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, and other countries in ~4 years
- We'll replace taxis and hotels by getting rides and sharing homes with strangers
- Billions of people across the world will never need to own a desktop or laptop
- A short video sharing app will kill TV
- QR codes become relevant
Most of these would be a hard sell at the time.