3 ms·
You must not have read the article, because it explicitly mentions cars.
by AndyKelley 13y ago
You must not have read the article, because it explicitly mentions cars.
- gambiting 13y agoI did, except for the very last paragraph since I thought I got the essence of the article already. I see it now.
- wvenable 13y agoYes, but he moved the goal-post when it comes to his car example. He's imagining a future where nobody knows how to drive. In the present, we already have people who can't maintain their own cars (and don't want to) just as we have people who can't maintain their own computers (and don't want to).
- AndyKelley 13y agoI agree - I was unsatisfied with his conclusion about cars. It seemed a good counterargument to bring up, but then he didn't resolve it.