4 ms·

This isn't an argument. By this logic, you could just as easily say that in the future, people will look back and scoff at the amount of time and energy wasted

This isn't an argument. By this logic, you could just as easily say that in the future, people will look back and scoff at the amount of time and energy wasted chasing a form of decentralized currency rife with problems that would never be solved at scale. You can't presuppose a conclusion and then extrapolate from it.

plaidfuji 4y ago
It’s true, all I’m doing is speculating, but that’s all anybody is doing here. This article didn’t make it to the front page because it’s rich with content about how electricity companies ran a successful marketing campaign to evangelize the use cases for electricity. It’s basically a newspaper clipping and a few paragraphs of summary. It’s here because people are projecting their feelings about today’s disruptive technologies onto this example about electricity, with the implication that people will one day look back and wonder why anyone doubted <technology X>. Here’s what I’m saying: AI is a part of our future, and very few people doubt that. AR/metaverse may not be perfect today but I think most people would agree it’s bound to be part of our future. Green tech stuff like electric cars, renewable energy, etc most people agree are part of the future and won’t argue with you. But for some reason, when you so much as whisper “crypto” on HN, people shout you down with rude and dismissive comments (not yours, but take a look around). I don’t work in crypto, I don’t have substantial holdings in crypto, I’m not shilling. I’m just saying that as a technology, it feels the most misunderstood despite its (to me) obvious transformative potential, which I think makes it the best analogy for electricity in the early 1900s of the available options. Does that argument hinge on the assumption that crypto is an inevitable part of future life? Yes - but so does every other argument here.

plaidfuji 4y ago

It’s true, all I’m doing is speculating, but that’s all anybody is doing here. This article didn’t make it to the front page because it’s rich with content about how electricity companies ran a successful marketing campaign to evangelize the use cases for electricity. It’s basically a newspaper clipping and a few paragraphs of summary. It’s here because people are projecting their feelings about today’s disruptive technologies onto this example about electricity, with the implication that people will one day look back and wonder why anyone doubted <technology X>. Here’s what I’m saying: AI is a part of our future, and very few people doubt that. AR/metaverse may not be perfect today but I think most people would agree it’s bound to be part of our future. Green tech stuff like electric cars, renewable energy, etc most people agree are part of the future and won’t argue with you. But for some reason, when you so much as whisper “crypto” on HN, people shout you down with rude and dismissive comments (not yours, but take a look around). I don’t work in crypto, I don’t have substantial holdings in crypto, I’m not shilling. I’m just saying that as a technology, it feels the most misunderstood despite its (to me) obvious transformative potential, which I think makes it the best analogy for electricity in the early 1900s of the available options. Does that argument hinge on the assumption that crypto is an inevitable part of future life? Yes - but so does every other argument here.