No, I really didn't.

They were attempting to make a point about the less than infallible path that genetics takes towards capability and success.

The character they chose to embody that message nearly had a heart attack because he had to run on a treadmill for a few extra minutes and it strained his congenital heart defect yet somehow thinks it's acceptable to hide that fact when trying to go on a long duration space mission.

I didn't miss the point, I disagreed with the creator's interpretation.

Gattaca never seemed like a particularly awful world.

The technology used legitimately created smarter, faster, more musical, etc, people.

Given that the protagonists parents were presented as middle class (at best) it also appeared that the technology was widely available and reasonably affordable.

The protagonist was fundamentally unfit for the position he was seeking, he had a major heart defect that meant he was all but certain to die under the rigors of a long term trip through the solar system.

The only "downsides" shown in the movie seemed to be that some people's parents were shitty and refused to offer their children the best potentials possible.

>I don’t see AR being useful for many fields like we think

AR is being massively adopted in the logistics and supply chain sectors as we speak.

Multiple companies have developed highly effective headset based systems that provide significant benefits in picking tasks (on the order of 30%+ efficiency gains), and numerous major warehousing and logistics companies are rolling them out globally.

>no one can get care

This is extremely disingenuous, the vast majority of Americans access high-quality healthcare without any issue, with only a small minority (+-10%) experiencing difficulties with healthcare.

>it’s only for people with money

More than 90% of Americans have health insurance of one kind or another, and a similar amount have accessed the healthcare system when needed.

You're erroneously extrapolating out the negative experiences of a small minority of the population to "everyone".

So highly localized to your socioeconomic and educational level, in your specific society, among you and your demographic peers?

Because housing affordability is an extremely localized issue that the vast, vast majority of the rest of the world population outside your own personal bubble don't have to deal with.

>the verge of apocalypse

Actually, by most scientific measures we've dodged apocalyptic climate change pretty handily at this point.

Assuming nothing much changes on our current trajectory (i.e. The current market supported pace of renewable adoption and other pricing/security induced energy changes) the world will warm somewhere between 1.7-1.9 degrees Celsius.

That will lead to greater instability in weather patterns, more extreme weather events, etc, but Human society will persist without major global scale collapse, and much of the world will experience only mild to moderate disruptions.

>this world is a dystopia

How do you classify a dystopia and what are you comparing it to?

By every measure we've ever conceived of, the world today is richer, healthier, better fed, better educated, more democratic, more equal, and generally better off than at literally any other time in human history.

Efficiency is important as it relates to cost.

A battery that's 98% efficient at a cost of $350 per kWh is less cost-effective at scale than a battery that has 70% efficiency at a cost of $50 per kWh.

You also have to consider real world factors unrelated to direct efficiency such as scalability, supply chain, and complexity of manufacturing.

An extremely efficient battery that requires the most advanced manufacturing facilities in the world, using materials from a dozen different mines spread across 3 continents, is going to be much more difficult to scale than an average efficiency energy storage solution that uses (relative to industrial projects) ubiquitous off the shelf components.

In our current situation perfect is very much the enemy of good enough.