An argument I see a lot on here: ~Web3's problems are the same ones email and mobile Internet had, which means Web3 *is* the next mobile Internet!~
No. Just bc two things share the same failures doesn't mean they'll follow the same success path.
It's "analogy by failure."
No. Just bc two things share the same failures doesn't mean they'll follow the same success path.
It's "analogy by failure."
"Analogy by failure" in Web3 debates doesn't prove Web3 will fail. It doesn't prove anything. It's just a fallacy.
If I tape dung to a cup and say it's a radio, that's a failure too. I can say "you idiots, email also failed once" but that doesn't change that it's cup-dung.
If I tape dung to a cup and say it's a radio, that's a failure too. I can say "you idiots, email also failed once" but that doesn't change that it's cup-dung.
It's really the proving too much fallacy, but I've found pitiful engagement on citations of PTM, and I think we should just rename it for the Internet something more intuitive, since "My thing is failing in all most auspicious ways" is the way this argument typically appears.
Somebody once told me, of a software for predicting hit songs, that the algorithm correctly predicted 100 of the last 10 no. 1 hits. For every hit it got, it hyped 9 duds.
The thing about tracking Silicon Valley hype is that SV has correctly 100 of the last 10 great tech hits.
The thing about tracking Silicon Valley hype is that SV has correctly 100 of the last 10 great tech hits.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
