> I think it's good to realize when it's stretched too far. Who is the arbiter of when it's stretched too far? I am working with the data we have to make an em

> I think it's good to realize when it's stretched too far. Who is the arbiter of when it's stretched too far? I am working with the data we have to make an empirical expectation. Speculation is fine, but if we are going to make an effort to ground it in reality I feel like prior art is as the best bet we can make. > Just because you find a similarity with something that happened in the past doesn't mean you can just abandon all critical thought. I think I am actually applying critical thought. I am challenging a narrative that doesn't seem to have a precedent and looking at examples from the past that were similar unprecedented technological changes. This seems to be a reasonable approach to set reasonable expectations. Of course I could be wrong, but I feel like at least my pitch is based on some historic data. FYI the book reading this wasn't just an aside in a newspaper, it was a cultural concern shared by many. https://timeline.com/what-technology-are-we-addicted-to-this-time-f0f7860f2fab https://timeline.com/what-technology-are-we-addicted-to-this...