1202
17 years* (thelemmy.club)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
238 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://mastodon.online/@FranckLeroy/109627512801712672

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

Elon musk popularized the electric car.

It had dumb handles that killed people. It lied about having self-driving capabilities. It had terrible manufacturing tolerances.

The "technically true" nature of it reads like propaganda against electric cars as a whole, does it not? I'd argue that applies here too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)

    Your example is not even close to technically true.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    Sure. Sure. Insert your own example of applying the sins of a particular implementation of a technology to a hierarchical supergroup. That was an example I came up with in a few minutes on the shitter, not a deep philosophical argument.

    _ is bad, because (specific implementation) has these flaws!

    That's the issue being discussed here. It's misleading without precision.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    1. most electric cars are teslas so like a statistical analysis would be mostly correct.

    2. propaganda against electric cars is generally just propaganda against cars in general, for example:

    if full self driving becomes a thing you can expect traffic to become MUCH worse as like one minivan for a parent with 3 kids is replaced by four self driving cars that drive each kid around and one for the parent. This could lead to traffic jams at every subburb

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Doesn't have to be cars.

    I'm just saying the original post is conflating criticisms against a particular implementation of blockchain with all blockchain.

    "The wright brothers invented a useless machine they called the airplane. It only held one person and could fly for only a limited duration. It was also extremely dangerous."

    That'd be a silly sentence, would it not?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Well that's very different than anything happening in the thread so yes its very silly.

    The old newspapers are full of critiques of the ford model T and conflating them with all cars, most of those criticisms apply only to early cars. I think that's what you're getting at here.

    But realistically in context the criticisms make sense. I would go as far as to say its more a problem that enthusiasts havent renamed bitcoin as a "cryptoasset" since its not useful as currency and apply "cryptocurrency" only to proof of stake designs.

    Or as an analogy, it would be like calling a motorcycle a type of bicycle, which is more or less true, but its so goddamn different in use they had the sense to rename it so normal people would be able to tell them apart.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    What are the differences that you see?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    I think its mostly for most people "crypto" = "cryptocurrency" = "bitcoin" even though there's some categorical umbrellas there and I don't think there's a way to fix it without redefining cryptocurrency to only include currencies and specifically exclude bitcoin and similar coins. Blockchain has a similar problem because its used as a synonym for crypto.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent