By definition, it isn't "piling on" for this blog to have been written, last December, before the CES AI gadget hype. Anticipating, long before launch, issues t

By definition, it isn't "piling on" for this blog to have been written, last December, before the CES AI gadget hype. Anticipating, long before launch, issues that are being discussed now, when reviewers have the device in their hands. Nor, in any way, shape or form is it unusual for a bad/imperfect product to receive poor reviews. That is not piling on--it is normal and expected. No one is literally saying that an individual contributor at Humane is a "scammer" just because they happened to have worked on a project that arguably takes perfectly good sand and subtracts value from it. That happens. A lot. Sometimes you intend to make a product, and you end up working on an empty product-shaped object. Heck, sometimes, say in healthcare, the drug or device you hoped would help people not only does nothing, but actually causes harm. That doesn't mean you were foolish to have started work, but simply because you started with "good intentions" doesn't mean a product belongs on the market. Humane is charging $700 for a device with $24 monthly subscriptions. If someone thinks that such an offering is worthless, or nearly so, it is hardly surprising if they use "aggressive" language to warn people away. If there is anything unusual or unsettling it is that some people in tech seem to feel that it is "unethical" to treat tech companies as anything less than bold innovators, irrespective of what that they ship. If someone is despairing over past week's discourse, one only can imagine how they'd deal with something like Apple's "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" commercials.