4 ms·
It doesn't? The point of the article was that people shouldn't be allowed to build things like IoT candles because they're not necessary. Not "this isn't usefu
by fps 10y ago
It doesn't? The point of the article was that people shouldn't be allowed to build things like IoT candles because they're not necessary. Not "this isn't useful to me", or even "this thing is ridiculous, they're not going to sell any of them!", but: "These are people with real skills and entrepreneurial spirit, investing a renewable resource (money) and a non-renewable one (time) into products that really aren’t going to move the needle."
The GP even says "How much positive impact could those people be having if they were just pointed in another direction?" This isn't being critical of their interests, this is saying they shouldn't be able to choose what they work on.
- icebraining 10y agoThe point of the article was that people shouldn't be allowed Nowhere does the article say or imply this. Yes, the author thinks these are not useful generally and that it's a waste to create them. No, that still doesn't mean or imply they want to ban their creation. The GP even says "How much positive impact could those people be having if they were just pointed in another direction?" This isn't being critical of their interests, this is saying they shouldn't be able to choose what they work on. No, it isn't. In no way, shape or form does the verb "point" imply coercion. "Point" means "direct someone's attention".