Which is why OP used "cure cancer!" as a joke.

However, much progress has been made. I am alive right now because of a breakthrough cancer therapy that was FDA approved in 2011. (Well after Nixon!)

This fall I am going to get a therapy that mass-replicates your own immune cells in a lab for re-injection. It's so expensive (and has uncertain benefit) that it's not generally available in the UK or Canada yet. Automation will be a key to making it cost-effective.

It's such a complex area, I think information retrieval and computational science / simulation, or AI if you prefer, will help.

Jet fuel is set to skyrocket by August and I don't think jet travel will remain affordable for most of society. Looking at the proportion of the airplane that is Economy Plus, or Economy Plus-Plus, about 5%, I don't think there's enough demand for a tremendous amount of supersonic travel between any two cities besides perhaps NYC and LA, and NYC and Atlanta/Miami

Never sounded so good.

Get paid to fight AI
 
Honestly, AI is going to slow hiring, and then companies will stop hiring new positions. I don't think it's going to be an obvious "we are laying off 20% of the company due to AI being amaze-balls". Yeah yeah like 30 very large companies are laying off employees saying it's due to AI but... if you look at their public finances they're flat growth whereas S&P 500 is up 999% (or whatever, it's a lot) so they're saying what they have to say to keep their job as CEO.
 
My prediction is 97% of "job replacement" by AI will simply be the slow march of progress as the one really talented guy on his team, slowly replaces his coworker's workstreams via automation, something that was going to happen anyways, just 10 years later than the current timeline. You can't really legislate that kind of slow motion trainwreck. It's very easy to do quarter after quarter of 499 employees reduction in workforce to avoid layoff public notices etc. And businesses will win in the courts under "public notices for less than 499 employees is excessive burden on businesses" etc etc.

The transistors aren't actually smaller. They fit more of them in the same 2 dimensional area by using layers. The layers are the Z dimension. The thermals are an interesting question.

The transistors aren't actually smaller. It's standard in the field to market the next chip generation as a smaller size when they mean equivalent to the new size. In this case the transistors are stacked vertically so looking down you get layers X areal density of the 2 dimensional surface. We don't do this with flash stacks, which now have up to 321 layers and are mapped to 1000+.

The angstrom scale business is marketing fluff to make the density increase understandable to consumers. But this is one of the developments leveraging the Z dimension that are legitimate progress. The Z dimension gives more than just the same chip folded like origami. The net distance traveled by a signal in a cycle can be reduced, which yields massive improvement in performance without additional cost of power/heat.

"Direct to Satellite" tech is coming right along and both the satellites on cell towers and the batteries to power them are going to be obsolete fairly soon.

Latency to LEO is not a dealbreaker for backup usage. 25-50 ms for Starlink.

Granted, your issue about bandwidth still stands and seems hard to fix. They form virtual cells on the ground with beamforming, but I don't know how many satellites are in view of a city at the same time to divy it up.

...and nothing of value was lost.

Welcome to 1995.

Might as well spread the joy around developing challengers (not like that!). It's not like the prime mover in New Space is going to need any part of NASA's whopping $40b annual budget.

This seems like a situation where it's very hard to get excited about the idea that it's the regulator's problem. Did some Canadian fed technically have the authority to inspect? Quite possibly. Is there some sort of justification for even the cost of performing the inspection, much less any undesired knock-on effects of the notion that literally all vessels must be inspected no matter what, in a case like this? Seems harder to make that case.

There are a lot of situations where large portions of the public have no choice but to use products and services that they have no reasonable ability to be "informed" about. Either it's simply not possible if you aren't in a position to legally compel honesty from the vendor or it's a case where "informed" is PhD-level work in the area, or a combination of the two; but some rando's aggressively contrarian submarine that loudly and proudly skips all industry certifications and is available on boutique scale for very wealthy customers doesn't seem like one of those cases.

Selling your body scans as a VR skin. AI enhanced, naturally.

This is what happened
 
LLM trained on security breaches are getting real good at finding tiny security flaws, probably unwinding years or even decades of intentional security flaws for various agencies

There hasn't been a single improvement to android i needed/wanted since my Nexus 5 back in....2013. I just want vanilla android, no changes, particularly to the UI, and security updates, for the next 60 years. I just don't give a fuck about whatever feature the UI/UX designer trying to justify their job, is trying to squeeze into a mature product at this point. Go fuck yourself, UI/UX dude at google. I hate you, you actively make my life worse.