3 ms·
This is a very stupid article. It describes* the lack of economic success of two somewhat automated factories built to produce large numbers of computers during
by pinewurst 8y ago
This is a very stupid article. It describes* the lack of economic success of two somewhat automated factories built to produce large numbers of computers during an interval when neither's products were popular enough to justify their scale. It's like judging the economics of the Edsel factory in 1959 and generalizing that large scale US auto production was a stupid idea.
*Fixed - bad wording choice
- RossBencina 8y agoI found the article to be an interesting chronological journey. It's worth a look just for the photos of the 1984 Mac production line, and 1990 NeXT production line. > It cites the lack of economic success It describes the lack of economic success. I'm not sure what thesis you think the article is "citing" in support of.
- miles 8y ago>> It cites the lack of economic success > It describes the lack of economic success. I'm not sure what thesis you think the article is "citing" in support of. Nothing wrong with "cites" in this context. From the OED: "4. To bring forward an instance, to adduce or allege (anything) by way of example, proof, etc."
- Armisael16 8y agoYes. The article doesn’t use the lack of economic success as an example or proof of anything. Merely mentioning something is not enough to be citing it. There has to be a larger purpose.
- robdachshund 8y agoIs arguing over semantics productive?