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.
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.
Source Tweets: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
@pmarca Says 