> The article artificially divides people into two camps: people who understand and don't care, and people who care and don't understand Yes, and that's unadul

> The article artificially divides people into two camps: people who understand and don't care, and people who care and don't understand Yes, and that's unadulterated bullshit, which is why I said the first half of the article was eyeroll inducing. > You say that as though there exists a unifying driving force behind technological change that could choose to change direction, rather than a million people all acting independently or in loose groups. Actually nothing I said assumes that, because I don't. However, tech does have change in aggregate and each of the people involve bring whatever push they have to that soup. Which is why it's important for people who care about things, say, more important than money, to be involved in the field. > If you want to see technology used as a force for "leveling the playing field", start a company or a charitable organization to do exactly that. Or, failing that, pitch a convincing vision and to a lot of people who have such organizations. Or join one of the many organizations already working on that. No shit.