Across the decades, there’ve been several truths established in Star Wars franchise: the Jedi doomed themselves, Skywalker men are dramatic as hell, and Figrin D’an and his band the Modal Nodes are the greatest band in the cosmos. The original Star Wars film put them on the map, and now Hasbro’s releasing a new set of…
Apple’s Watch Ultra, with its 2000-nit digital display and GPS capabilities, is a far cry from its Revolutionary War-era self-winding forebears. What sorts of wondrous body-mounted technologies might we see another hundred years hence? In his new book, The Skeptic’s Guide to the Future, Dr. Steven Novella (with assists from his brothers, Bob and Jay Novella) examines the history of wearables and the technologies that enable them to extrapolate where further advances in flexible circuitry, wireless connectivity and thermoelectric power generation might lead.
Excerpted from the book The Skeptics’ Guide to the Future: What Yesterday’s Science and Science Fiction Tell Us About the World of Tomorrow by Dr. Steven Novella, with Bob Novella and Jay Novella. Copyright © 2022 by SGU Productions, Inc. Reprinted with permission of Grand Central Publishing. All rights reserved.
As the name implies, wearable technology is simply technology designed to be worn, so it will advance as technology in general advances. For example, as timekeeping technology progressed, so did the wristwatch, leading to the smartwatches of today. There are certain advances that lend themselves particularly to wearable technology. One such development is miniaturization.
The ability to make technology smaller is a general trend that benefits wearables by extending the number of technologies that are small enough to be conveniently and comfortably worn. We are all familiar by now with the incredible miniaturization in the electronics industry, and especially in computer chip technology. Postage-stamp-sized chips are now more powerful than computers that would have filled entire rooms in prior decades.
As is evidenced by the high-quality cameras on a typical smartphone, optical technology has already significantly miniaturized. There is ongoing research into tinier optics still, using metamaterials to produce telephoto and zoom lenses without the need for bulky glass.
“Nanotechnology” is now a collective buzzword for machines that are built at the microscopic scale (although technically it is much smaller still), and of course, nanotech will have incredible implications for wearables.
We are also at the dawn of flexible electronics, also called “flex circuits” and more collectively “flex tech.” This involves printing circuits onto a flexible plastic substrate, allowing for softer technology that moves as we move. Flexible technology can more easily be incorporated into clothing, even woven into its fabric. The advent of two-dimensional materials, like carbon nanotubes, which can form the basis of electronics and circuits, are also highly flexible. Organic circuits are yet another technology that allows for the circuits to be made of flexible material, rather than just printed on flexible material.
Circuits can also be directly printed onto the skin, as a tattoo, using conductive inks that can act as sensors. One company, Tech Tats, already offers one such tattoo for medical monitoring purposes. The ink is printed in the upper layers of the skin, so they are not permanent. They can monitor things like heart rate and communicate this information wirelessly to a smartphone.
Wearable electronics have to be powered. Small watch batteries already exist, but they have finite energy. Luckily there are a host of technologies being developed that can harvest small amounts of energy from the environment to power wearables (in addition to implantable devices and other small electronics). Perhaps the earliest example of this was the self-winding watch, the first evidence of which comes from 1776. Swiss watchmaker Abraham-Louis Perrelet developed a pocket watch with a pendulum that would wind the watch from the movement of normal walking. Reportedly it took about fifteen minutes of walking to be fully wound.
There are also ways to generate electric power that are not just mechanical power. Four types of ambient energy exist in the environment—mechanical, thermal, radiant (e.g., sunlight), and chemical. Piezoelectric technology, for example, converts applied mechanical strain into electrical current. The mechanical force can come from the impact of your foot hitting the ground, or just from moving your limbs or even breathing. Quartz and bone are piezoelectric materials, but it can also be manufactured as barium titanate and lead zirconate titanate. Electrostatic and electromagnetic devices harvest mechanical energy in the form of vibrations.
There are thermoelectric generators that can produce electricity from differences in temperature. As humans are warm-blooded mammals, a significant amount of electricity can be created from the waste heat we constantly shed. There are also thermoelectric generators that are made from flexible material, combining flex tech with energy harvesting. This technology is mostly in the prototype phase right now. For example, in 2021, engineers published the development of a flexible thermoelectric generator made from an aerogel-silicone composite with embedded liquid metal conductors resulting in a flexible that could be worn on the wrist and could generate enough electricity to power a small device.
Ambient radiant energy in the form of sunlight can be converted to electricity through the photoelectric effect. This is the basis of solar panels, but small and flexible solar panels can be incorporated into wearable devices as well.
All of these energy-harvesting technologies can also double as sensing technology—they can sense heat, light, vibration, or mechanical strain and produce a signal in response. Tiny self-powered sensors can therefore be ubiquitous in our technology.
The technology already exists, or is on the cusp, to have small, flexible, self-powered, and durable electronic devices and sensors, incorporated with wireless technology and advanced miniaturized digital technology. We therefore can convert existing tools and devices into wearable versions, or use them to explore new options for wearable tech. We also can increasingly incorporate digital technology into our clothing, jewelry, and wearable equipment. This means that wearable tech will likely increasingly shift from passive objects to active technology integrated into the rest of our digital lives.
There are some obvious applications here, even though it is difficult to predict what people will find useful versus annoying or simply useless. Smartphones have already become smartwatches, or they can pair together for extended functionality. Google Glass is an early attempt at incorporating computer technology into wearable glasses, and we know how it has been received.
If we extrapolate this technology, one manifestation is that the clothing and gear we already wear can be converted into electronic devices we already use, or they can be enhanced with new functionality that replaces or supports existing devices.
We may, for example, continue to use a smartphone as the hub of our portable electronics. Perhaps that smartphone will be connected not only to wireless earbuds as they are now, but also to a wireless monitor built into glasses, or sensors that monitor health vitals or daily activity. Potentially, the phone could communicate with any device on the planet, so it could automatically contact your doctor’s office regarding any concerning changes, or contact emergency services if appropriate.
Portable cameras could also monitor and record the environment, not just for documenting purposes but also to direct people to desired locations or services, or contact the police if a crime or disaster is in progress.
As our appliances increasingly become part of the “internet of things,” we too will become part of that internet through what we wear, or what’s printed on or implanted beneath our skin. We might, in a very real sense, become part of our home, office, workplace, or car, as one integrated technological whole.
We’ve mostly been considering day-to-day life, but there will also be wearable tech for special occupations and situations. An extreme version of this is exosuits for industrial or military applications. Think Iron Man, although that level of tech is currently fantasy. There is no portable power source that can match Iron Man’s arc reactor, and there doesn’t appear to be any place to store the massive amounts of propellant necessary to fly as he does.
More realistic versions of industrial exosuits are already a reality and will only get better. A better sci-fi analogy might be the loader exo-suit worn by Ripley in Aliens. Powered metal exosuits for construction workers have been in development for decades. The earliest example is the Hardiman, developed by General Electric between 1965 and 1971. That project essentially failed and the Hardiman was never used, but since then development has continued. Applications have mostly been medical, such as helping people with paralysis walk. Industrial uses are still minimal and do not yet include whole-body suits. However, such suits can theoretically greatly enhance the strength of workers, allowing them to carry heavy loads. They could also incorporate tools they would normally use, such as rivet guns and welders.
Military applications for powered exosuits would likely include armor, visual aids such as infrared or night-vision goggles, weapons and targeting systems, and communications. Such exosuits could turn a single soldier into not just enhanced infantry, but also a tank, artillery, communications, medic, and mule for supplies.
Military development might also push technology for built-in emergency medical protocols. A suit could automatically apply pressure to a wound to reduce bleeding. There are already pressure pants that prevent shock by helping to maintain blood pressure. More ambitious tech could automatically inject drugs to counteract chemical warfare, increase blood pressure, reduce pain, or prevent infection. These could be controlled by either onboard AI or remotely by a battlefield medic who is monitoring the soldiers under their watch and taking actions remotely through their suits.
Once this kind of technology matures, it can then trickle down to civilian applications. Someone with life-threatening allergies could carry epinephrine on them to be injected, or they could wear an autoinjector that will dose them as necessary, or be remotely triggered by an emergency medical responder.
Everything discussed so far is an extrapolation from existing technology, and these more mature applications are feasible within fifty years or so. What about the far future? This is likely where nanotechnology comes in. Imagine wearing a nanosuit that fits like a second skin but that is made from programmable and reconfigurable material. It can form any mundane physical object you might need, on command. Essentially, the suit would be every tool ever made.
You could also change your fashion on demand. Go from casual in the morning to business casual for a meeting and then formal for a dinner party without ever changing your clothes. Beyond mere fashion, this could be programmable cosplay—do you want to be a pirate, or a werewolf? More practically, such a nanoskin could be well ventilated when it’s warm and then puff out for good insulation when it’s cold. In fact, it could automatically adjust your skin temperature for maximal comfort.
Such material can be soft and comfortable, but bunch up and become hard when it encounters force, essentially functioning as highly effective armor. If you are injured, it could stem bleeding, maintain pressure, even do chest compressions if necessary. In fact, once such a second skin becomes widely adopted, life without it may quickly become unimaginable and scary.
Wearable technology may become the ultimate in small or portable technology because of the convenience and effectiveness of being able to carry it around with us. As shown, many of the technologies we are discussing might converge on wearable technology, which is a good reminder that when we try to imagine the future, we cannot simply extrapolate one technology but must consider how all technology will interact. We may be making our wearables out of 2D materials, powered by AI and robotic technology, with a brain-machine interface that we use for virtual reality. We may also be creating customized wearables with additive manufacturing, using our home 3D printer.
Musk said the machine, which waved at the audience and lifted its knees, is a work in progress — but will be tested by working at Tesla’s car factories.
Amazon’s most powerful streaming stick is on sale yet again for Amazon’s second Prime Day sale in 2022. You can grab the Fire TV Stick 4K Max for $35, or $20 off its regular price. That’s how much it went for at this year’s first Prime Day event back in July, and it’s also the lowest price we’ve seen for the device on the website. The Fire TV Stick 4K Max supports Dolby Vision, HDR and HDR10+ content, as well as Dolby Atmos audio. It can also join WiFi 6 networks, and Amazon says it can start apps faster and has more fluid navigation than the basic Fire TV Stick 4K.
Buy Fire TV Stick 4K Max at Amazon – $35
Like other models, this one comes with a remote control that has preset buttons for Netflix, Prime Video, Disney+ and Hulu. Said remote is also powered by Alexa and can search content and launch them with just voice commands. You can even ask Alexa through the remote to dim your connected lights or check the weather. And if you have a compatible doorbell or security camera around your home, you can use its picture-in-picture capability to view its live feed on your screen without having to pause or remove whatever it is you’re watching.
Out of all the Fire TV streaming devices, only the Cube set-top box is more powerful than the 4K Max. The Fire TV Cube is also on sale for $60 at the moment, or half off its original price. But if you want something cheaper, you can also get the non-Max Fire TV Stick 4K for $25 or the base Fire TV Stick for $20.
Follow @EngadgetDeals on Twitter and subscribe to the Engadget Deals newsletter for the latest tech deals and buying advice.
One of the major problems that worked against Stadia from the jump was the fact that Google didn’t secure blockbuster exclusives for the cloud gaming service, which it will shut down in January. Sure, people were able to play the likes of Red Dead Redemption 2,Cyberpunk 2077 and Destiny 2 on the platform, but those are all available elsewhere. As it turns out, Google may have spurned the chance to have an exclusive title from one of the biggest names in gaming.
According to 9to5 Google, at one point Hideo Kojima was working on a Stadia-only follow-up to Death Stranding, which debuted on PlayStation in 2019 and later arrived on PC. Death Stranding has some asynchronous multiplayer elements. Other players might be able to use ladders, roads and other items that you place in the world, for instance. However, the planned follow-up was said to be a fully single-player game, which might have been the reason why Google canceled the project.
According to the report, Google canned the game, which was described as an episodic horror title, after seeing the first mockups in 2020. Stadia vice-president and general manager Phil Harrison is said to have made the final decision to kill the project. For what it’s worth, in a May 2020 interview, Kojima claimed one of his projects had recently been canceled.
Google reportedly abandoned the project in the belief that there wasn’t a market for single-player games anymore. Of note, CD Projekt Red just announced that Cyberpunk 2077 (which, again, was released on Stadia) has now sold 20 million copies, less than two years after its eventfuldebut. By mid-2021, Death Stranding itself had sold more than 5 million copies.
The lack of big exclusives is far from the only issue that led to Stadia’s downfall. A questionable business model and a seemingly rushed rollout didn’t help, and nor did Google’s reputation for ruthlessly killing off its own products. Even though Stadia has excellent game streaming tech and some passionate fans, it never took off as Google hoped. The company will shut down the platform on January 18th and issue refunds for all hardware and software purchases (except for Pro subscriptions). Ubisoft is working on a way to give people who bought its games on Stadia access to PC versions.
The news of Stadia’s demise blindsided developers, from giants like Destiny 2 studio Bungie to indie studios whose titles were supposed to hit the now-closed Stadia store in the coming weeks. As Axios notes, it isn’t clear whether Google has a broad plan to reimburse studios for costs they expected to recoup after launching their games on Stadia. There are concerns about what Stadia’s closure means for game preservation too. While Google didn’t secure AAA exclusives, Stadia has some indie games that aren’t available elsewhere.
Meanwhile, some are calling on Google to unlock the Stadia Controller’s Bluetooth functions. The argument is that, if people can more easily use the controller on other platforms, it’s less likely that the gamepad will become e-waste. The controller connects directly to WiFi for Stadia games in order to minimize lag. You can also hook it up to devices with a USB-C cable.
As for Kojima, he has a Death Stranding sequel in the works, according to the game’s star, Norman Reedus. It also emerged in June that Kojima has teamed up with Xbox Game Studios for his next title. That game will be powered by Microsoft’s cloud technology.
The Mirage’s Secret Garden and Dolphin Habitat is temporarily closed while it investigates the dolphin deaths.
Disney-owned channels including local ABC stations, ESPN, FX and 17 others are no longer available on Dish Network and Sling TV. Dish says Disney wanted almost $1 billion more to extend their carriage contract, which expired at 3AM ET on October 1st. As a result, Dish had to remove Disney’s channels from both platforms for the time being. As is usually the case in these situations, both sides are blaming each other for the blackout.
Dish claimed it offered Disney a contract extension, but said the latter rejected the proposal and walked away from the negotiating table. “We were not able to reach a mutual renewal agreement with Disney and without a contract in place we are legally required to remove their channels from our service,” Dish said in a statement.
Dish has accused Disney of holding “viewers hostage for negotiation leverage.” It claimed that Disney wanted Dish to insert ESPN and ESPN2 into packages that don’t currently include sports channels. In addition, it said Disney wanted to upend a policy that allows Dish subscribers to remove local channels and save money. “Now Disney wants to take this away by forcing most Dish customers in their ABC markets to pay for local channels,” Dish said.
On the flip side, Disney claimed it didn’t receive a fair offer to keep the likes of ESPN and National Geographic on Dish and Sling TV. “After months of negotiating in good faith, Dish has declined to reach a fair, market-based agreement with us for continued distribution of our networks,” Disney told Variety in a statement. “The rates and terms we are seeking reflect the marketplace and have been the foundation for numerous successful deals with pay-TV providers of all types and sizes across the country. We’re committed to reaching a fair resolution, and we urge Dish to work with us in order to minimize the disruption to their customers.”
The Disney networks that Dish had to remove from its platforms are ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNews, ESPN Deportes, Disney Channel, Disney Jr., Disney XD, Freeform, FX, FXX, FXM, National Geographic, Nat Geo Wild, Nat Geo Mundo, ACC Network, SEC Network, Longhorn Network and Baby TV. Dish also had to jettison local ABC stations in Chicago; Fresno, California; Houston; Los Angeles; New York City; Philadelphia; Raleigh, North Carolina; and San Francisco.
This is the second time in the space of a year that Disney’s channels have gone dark on a major live TV streaming service. YouTube TV lost access to them last December over a carriage fee dispute with Disney. The standoff didn’t last long, however, as the likes of ESPN and local ABC channels returned the next day.
Dish has also had battles with other media giants. HBO and Cinemax vanished from Dish and Sling TV in 2018. The channels, and HBO Max, became available on Dish again last year after it reached an agreement with WarnerMedia, which is now part of Warner Bros. Discovery. However, the channels and HBO Max still aren’t available on Sling TV.
The USS Bonhomme Richard burned for more than four days and was the worst warship fire in Navy history outside of combat.
The question of which is better, Polestar 2 or Tesla Model 3, comes down to matters of driver preference.
Cambridge scientists have determined a way to get a robot to taste salt when it cooks, which could translate to robot chefs in the future.
This is site is run by Sascha Endlicher, M.A., during ungodly late night hours. Wanna know more about him? Connect via Social Media by jumping to about.me/sascha.endlicher.
