All I meant was, if someone asks "What's a desktop app?" or "What's an iOS app?" or "What's a website?" you can rattle off 100 examples without breaking a sweat

All I meant was, if someone asks "What's a desktop app?" or "What's an iOS app?" or "What's a website?" you can rattle off 100 examples without breaking a sweat. "What's happiness?" on the other hand is subjective. You could describe things that make you happy, but it wouldn't make sense to point to a banana and say "That's happiness." And if you ask "Am I happy?" the answer probably isn't boolean. "What's a PWA?" seems to fall into the latter category. If so, then we're treading into philosophy territory, which has claimed countless victims over millennia. You can spend a lifetime trying to define love, but at the end of it, you probably won't produce work that can be built on and extended, the way scientific papers can. It's notoriously difficult to pin down philosophical concepts into discrete buckets of meaning. We have to operate at the resolution of words. They break if you push them too far. I think it's important to distinguish these two domains. If we can't effortlessly point to dozens of examples of PWAs, it might be better to reject the notion that PWAs can be defined at all.