Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fwubglubbel t1_j45ag0u wrote

>It starts with some nonsensical gibberish from a techno-illiterate techstock snake oil salesman

That wasn't referring to you, but your source, Jeff Brown, who obviously knows nothing about technology. He just hawks get rich quick investment schemes (if he really knew how to get rich from tech stocks, he wouldn't have to sell investment advice for a living).

The graph he uses shows a single line with Moore's law, then "AI computing usage", which has nothing to do with Moore's law. It's like saying that buses are faster than race cars because the use of buses has increased.

The fact that neither you nor your source understand that loses you all credibility.

The same thing with the COVID nonsense. Whether you are apolitical or not, your source is a right wing nutjob conspiracy website.

You need fact based, peer reviewed, credible sources in order to write a useful book.

4

ronin_khan OP t1_j45bkl9 wrote

I see what you mean, but your assertions seem a bit radical. X person "knows nothing about technology". Y person "loses all credibility"...Z thing is "covid nonsense". What makes you so angry? Ok let's see. Your point about that source is taken, and I'll review the paragraph or consider removing the quote from Brown, if it creates confusion. My point is that growth is exponential, not linear. Yes, Moore's law was about processing capacity.

Regarding my "conspiracy" source, I have already changed it to the original source, and made a comment in the other post, that you may have overlooked, and it's ok. The new source is the original study, posted on a website owned by the American Medical Association, cited elsewhere in this post (I think a few lines up). I hope you're happy with the change, or that association is also without credibility for you?

Regarding sources, I don't agree with you that only peer-reviewed sources are credible, as you seem to imply. We only have to look at what's happening int he world to see that the "experts" know a lot less than we thought, even if "peer reviewed".

I also disagree that a book cannot be useful just because you disagreew with it in some points. You may want to consider to just take what is useful and discard the rest. We can learn from everyone and everything.

Thanks for your feedback again!

1

abjedhowiz t1_j465gr9 wrote

I didn’t read it but I think its an opinion piece and should be read as fiction. I’m sure if he wrote it well from the perspective of fiction it would sell well. Like The Circle. When anyone blabs about society the way they see it, I’m not sure what genre that fits into. I think they fictionalize it further to make it fit into the fiction genre. Or is this a new type of genre for our day and age without publishers and peer review. Much just like how people digest info from social media comments.

0

CircaSixty8 t1_j46dgno wrote

Wait you didn't read it, but you have all this to say about it?

2