It’s a call for discussion, friends. You may want to go into technical / semantic discussion like nexuist and Splizard here are doing, and that’s fine. A lot of

It’s a call for discussion, friends. You may want to go into technical / semantic discussion like nexuist and Splizard here are doing, and that’s fine. A lot of the details are still missing to work through, indees. But if we jump to solve that cognitive dissonance too soon, I feel we may miss meatier parts of the discussion. The whole point of the article to me seems to be to avoid that temptation to be too pragmatic for a while, and allow space for seeing alternate paths to the future. I admit that this can feel handwavey even to myself, but it can still be valuable to start from a high level view. What if the world proposed by the author were possible and true as is? What kinds of applications would you naively want to build? That's what inspires me here. A worrydream.com sort of approach, perhaps? :)