3 ms·
Oh, come on. It was only for a section of the page. If you really want to discuss semantic I believe the point he raises on the "sharing economy" term being sp
by johnchristopher 10y ago
Oh, come on. It was only for a section of the page.
If you really want to discuss semantic I believe the point he raises on the "sharing economy" term being spun is much more worth talking about.
- eropple 10y ago"Only". Raising your "I think twisting names to sound like a four-year-old" flag is not an "only". I mean, he's totally correct about the sharing economy stuff and I think "piecework subcontractor economy" is a way better description of the --but I literally can't send this to anybody I know because they'll think I agree with the childishness. This is kind of like an amplified version of the LessWrong silliness--when you have an epistemic closure in which you start redefining basic tents, you have to tone it down when you're talking to normal people or you sound like the kind of crazy person who'd you expect to be raving at you in the streets. PR matters. If Stallman wants to just wave his hands in the air for the rest of his life, more power to him, but I'd think he'd want to actually achieve some of the goals he says he does. Then again, he thinks taxis are a positive just because you can pay cash, and he lives near me so he has been exposed to the fine (cough hack wheeze) hackney cabs of the Boston area, so I'm not sure we're even living in the same universe at the basic level.
- johnchristopher 10y agoHmmm. You are right, I somehow definitely missed the PR angle and overlooked it. Which is weird because I could have written your post if someone had used the `Micro$oft` childish spelling in any other conversation. Thanks.
- eropple 10y agoRight on. And I totally hate the Micro$oft thing, too. =) It's not effective.