5 ms·
I’m surprised this article is so upvoted. 1. The author took this nearly word for word from Thiel/Eric Weinstein, who have both discussed this point extensivel
by undefined3840 7y ago
I’m surprised this article is so upvoted.
1. The author took this nearly word for word from Thiel/Eric Weinstein, who have both discussed this point extensively, most recently on Weinstein’s podcast.
2. The author is using this click bait headline to discuss his own industry/company, and this looks like some content marketing piece.
- ElFitz 7y agoPlus, the clickbait headline is merely a copycat of one Thiel's own words, except it was with flying cars and Twitter
- chr1 7y agoIt is a marketing piece. I liked the article because it did not go on complaining how we wasted our time on building useless things like facebook, but suggested possible reason why innovation in engineering things is slower than in engineering programs. And also suggested possible solution.
- idoh 7y agoAgreed. It's actually a worse version of the Thiel/Weinstein framing, because the author posits the divide between "connection driven" and "applied science" innovation, which is a less useful distinction than the "bits" v "atoms" distinction. The "bits" v "atoms" distinction is better because software as a whole has seen dramatic innovation that is not confined to "networks". Feels like a marketing piece for the author's company TBH.
- bogwog 7y ago> and this looks like some content marketing piece. Seeing that it's on linkedin, there's no need to read the article to know that's exactly what this is.
- base698 7y agoLink?
- foobaziod7363 7y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM9f0W2KD5s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM9f0W2KD5s