A common critique of new tech from outsiders is “Yes, sure, it’s great tech, but it will never have practical value or usefulness.” I think that is almost always a form of fake sophistication. It sounds sophisticated but it’s not. It’s a hat tap followed by a slam.
Yes, sure, the automobile is great tech, but it’s not like normal people are going to use it to get from point A to point B.
Yes, sure, the television is great tech, but it’s not like normal people are ever going to prefer it to a good stage play.
Yes, sure, the refrigerator is great tech, but it’s not like you’d ever actually store your meat in it.
@pmarca agree with car and maybe TV, but thought refrigeration and iceboxes were a known need and quickly adopted—
Barry Graubart (@graubart) March 27, 2014
As such, this critique is usually what theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli called “not even wrong”. There’s no logical substance or flow. When techies critique tech, it’s more: “This new tech is interesting, but it’s missing properties X, Y, and Z to be used in that way.” That critique can be either right or wrong, and vigorous debate follows. That’s how a lot of technological progress is made. Hence, from the structure of the critique, you can often inductively determine the qualifications of the critic to make the critique.
@pmarca "not even wrong" is a good one! Makes me question, what is worse than being wrong? Thinking you're right when you're not?—
Tiago Vieira (@Tiago_O_Vieira) March 27, 2014