No thankss, I got tired of being surrounded by people like you

I agree with the sentiment, but I do have to argue with some of his points (because it’s fun, and it’s okay to do things just for the hell of it). Excellent point, ineffectively articulated

I wrote my MSc on The Metaverse. Learning to built VR stuff was fun, but a complete waste of time. There was precisely zero utility in having gotten in early… But I’m struggling to think of anyone who has earned anything more than bragging rights by being first.

You’re your own counterexample. You got to experience the metaverse when it was still alive, which you wouldn’t have if you had waited for just a few years. And you got a Masters Degree out of it, not just bragging rights.

But I’m struggling to think of anyone who has earned anything more than bragging rights by being first. Some early investors made money

So you’re not struggling that much if you can start of the next sentence with an example of people who earned more than just bragging rights.

But I’m struggling to think of anyone who has earned anything more than bragging rights by being first. Some early investors made money - but an equal and opposite number lost money.

This grossly overestimates the ratio of successes to failures. You’re muuuuuuch more likely to lose money on the gamble of The Next Big Thing than win; for every HTTP there’s a Gopher and Usenet and a dozen others that all look the same from the outside looking in.

For every HTML 2.0 you might have tried, you were just as likely to have got stuck in the dead-end of Flash.

Flash is a terrible example, it ran its lifecycle already, sure, but it was HUGE back in the day. And people benefited from using it; some of my favorite animators and gamedevs cut their teeth on Flash, people’s work got recognized by a global audience, people landed jobs, Flash made it onto cable TV channels, people still light up at the mention of Homestar Runner to this day. People also made money, sure, but there are more benefits to playing with tech than “it makes money happen.”

Which brings me to my final gripe: this is all framed as if the only benefit of a technology is if it’s productive or profitable. When you discuss your favorite show with friends, are you considering whether the conversation can be converted into capital? When you watch a beautiful sunset, do you fret over whether the clouds will help you achieve your quarterly goals? Out on dates with your SOs, do you have to take a break in the bathroom to worry whether the evening is meeting KPIs?

Sometimes the benefit of things is just having the experience, instead of treating it as a means to an end. Yeah, don’t let the FOMO ruin your day, but maybe take some time to play around with a doomed technology before it becomes abandoned and the community ceases to be. Maybe you’ll become a recognized expert, maybe you’ll learn some valuable lessons you can transfer to tech with more longevity, or maybe you’ll just have fun.

And honestly, whats the fucking point of living, working and grinding and suffering, if not for the fun in between it all?

If my responses are as stimulating to you as yours are to me, why tf do you keep responding?

I did do the 5 minute search, and found his write-up. I said I wouldn’t be surprised to find out it was fabricated, not that it was.

Thank you for proving my point

Nobody wants to point out that Alexey Grigorev changes to being named Gregory after 2 paragraphs?

Slop journalism at its sloppiest. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that this story was entorely fabricated.

The good news is that Russia is only evil and fascist and so it’s always bad to be associated with them. Trust me, I’m one of the good Americans

You fool, you absolute bingus. You have fallen for one of the classic blunders, for I, in my infinite wisdom, know that all states are bad. And all equally so at that. 😎

So there are words I can say that get you to immediately stop listening to anything else I say and make broad assumptions about me and my beliefs?

Talk about being trained

Picking apart the single definition used by one entity doesn’t mean the term itself is completely meaningless.

But fine, I’ll bite, just for fun:

the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo

That’s every country

That’s “whataboutism.” Or alternatively, it’s “authoritarian realism”—a term I just made up which refers to any view that assumes a nation has to centralize powers to exist because that’s how the world under capitalism currently operates.

Reductions from what? The USSR was an increase in all of those things from Tsarist Russia.

So 1. You just gave a counterexample to your first point, and 2. I guess the metric depends on who you ask. It could be reductions from a historical state (as we could say of e.g. the current USA compared to North America’s political systems prior to european colonization), or compared to some standard of liberty (e.g. your use of USSR).

I can agree with your first point and still posit that the term is meaningful: e.g. authoritarianism isn’t a binary state of extistence, but rather a spectrum that different states can be compared on; all states can be authoritarian to some degree, but some states are more or less authoritarian than others.

Or to put it another way, saying “authoritarianism” is meaningless because all states exercise authority is like saying “conservativism” is meaningless because all living creatures seek to conserve resources (to some degree).

I agree that language is an imperfect map for the real world we inhabit—and I especially agree that the language (as with any social tool) gets abused to manipulate people—but I don’t agree that those facts make the terms completely useless in communication.

In most instances, “authoritarianism” is a more rigidly defined term than simply meaning “exercises authority.”

E.g. Wikipedia defines it as

a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law.

Time and again, across years and product categories, Amazon has reached out to its vendors and instructed them to increase retail prices on competitors’ websites, threatening dire consequences if vendors do not comply.

Yes, buying from alternative websites is the bare minimum and the bar is so low it’s underground. But that’s beside the point: Amazon is price fixing across the internet.

I think it’s Jeff Goldblum as Dr. Ian Malcolm just saying “never eating, ahh, again” with the same cadence as “life, ahh, finds a way”

Chomsky after the leaks: “I’m an old, old man, and I’m so sickly and weary and probably on my last legs cough, cough” (looks around nervously to see if anyone’s buying it)

I try to view the liberal “this isn’t us” and “wow, this is just like [other country]” as a sign of progress because it means that not only do they acknowledge it’s bad, they are trying to form a national identity that explicitly rejects these values.

It’s far from perfect, but it’s a lot better than condoning it.