[HN Gopher] Five Levels of Hype
___________________________________________________________________
Five Levels of Hype
Author : snailletters
Score : 134 points
Date : 2022-01-20 10:55 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (johannesklingebiel.de)
(TXT) w3m dump (johannesklingebiel.de)
| h2odragon wrote:
| Nicely observed. This has more to do with how people think than
| how the world works; which means that no step of the hype train
| here needs to be connected to reality in any way. The product
| doesn't have to even _exist_ to benefit from hype; that 's how
| religions and dancing plagues happen.
| PebblesRox wrote:
| More on dancing plagues for the unfamiliar:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_plague_of_1518
| saltmeister wrote:
| Nuzzerino wrote:
| I feel like this article itself is overhyped. I don't really see
| anything ground-breaking here, and the author doesn't really
| elaborate on why the examples fit into the arbitrary categories
| given.
|
| > This categorization is intended to help people better
| understand which form of hype they're confronted with.
|
| > I hope this categorization is helpful for you to understand
| which form of hype you're confronted with.
|
| But to what end? No mention of what you can actually do with this
| information. I guess it's useful if you want to try to sound like
| the smartest person in the room when explaining it to average
| people who only dabble in keeping up with tech trends. They
| probably won't question you. The fact that the draft image went
| viral on Twitter is case in point.
|
| I'd even venture to say that this probably deserves a flag.
| derbOac wrote:
| I like this for several reasons, mostly because I like people
| trying to be somewhat concrete and quantitative about ideas that
| have a lot of saliency but tend to be thrown around only
| conceptually. The scale also makes some sense to be based on
| experience.
|
| I'm not sure the ratings of all the examples are quite right;
| some of them I think might be over or underhyped more than the
| author proposes. This isn't too big of a deal to me though, as it
| seems more like misapplication of the scale rather than the scale
| itself.
|
| The other thing I might suggest is that I'm not sure the 3-4-5
| levels are all that distinct, especially 4 and 5.
|
| Most importantly along these lines, my experience is that the
| "othering" level can happen well within the realm of 3 and 4. so
| although I agree that the "othering" phenomenon occurs, I don't
| see it as distinct from 3 and 4, it's just that the magnitude of
| it increases as you go up in hype. "Othering" seems like another
| component dimension, along with present vs future focus and
| empirical basis for claims.
|
| So something like this with levels 3-5 compressed, or maybe just
| 4-5, makes a lot of sense to me, like it's something you could
| maybe actually apply in some kind of scientific study.
| eric_cc wrote:
| > Examples here are (again) the cryptocurrency scene which has
| been pretty good at othering critics as "no-coiners" or lately
| with the phrase "have fun staying poor".
|
| I'm somebody that spends a good deal of time thinking deeply on
| cryptocurrencies and the implications to society. I believe they
| a positive, revolutionary step in the right direction of human
| liberty. And I'll gladly acknowledge that it's still speculative
| until it's not.
|
| But crypto, like any other movement, attracts total scumbags.
| It's unfortunate because people who speak negatively only serve
| to undermine their group - whether it's crypto or a social cause
| group etc. and often they, themselves, are the insecure ignorant
| one that don't even deeply understand what they're fighting for.
| Comevius wrote:
| Crypto is not practical or fair by design. It needs a steady
| supply of greater fools to operate, and the only future it's
| capable of creating is one where everything is monetized,
| corporatized and the wealthy is in charge, with no recourse for
| the rest of us.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g
| anonporridge wrote:
| All of civilization needs a never ending supply of greater
| fools to keep operating and reward the early investors.
|
| We call them children.
|
| If you don't want to participate in this ponzi, then chop
| wood and carry water until you can't anymore and let your
| body return to the earth.
| tarsinge wrote:
| I really did not like that video. There are some interesting
| ideas but the tone is insufferable for me, not a fan of
| superficial punchlines and logical fallacies wrapped as deep
| thoughts, no matter if I agree or not with the point.
| officialchicken wrote:
| >superficial punchlines and logical fallacies
|
| I thought the writing and editing were excellent and well
| thought out. Can you give a specific example of when a
| logical fallacy was employed in the video?
| Animats wrote:
| I watched the whole thing, which is too long. He gets a bit
| carried away at some points, but he doesn't seem to be
| factually wrong.
|
| He makes a good point - cryptocurrencies are a transfer of
| money from late adopters to early adopters. That's implicit
| in anything where "line goes up" but there is no revenue,
| no dividends, it's zero sum, and there's no exit.
|
| The NFT thing seems to be on the way out. The NFT industry
| is Axie Infinity, OpenSea, Bored Ape Yacht Club, and the
| little guys. Axie Infinity recently crashed hard. Their
| Smooth Love Potion token, the one players grind for, is
| down to $0.01246 (was around $0.35 at peak). Their other
| token, Axie, is down to about half the peak. OpenSea seems
| to be stalling out with limited liquidity - too many items
| with high prices but no bids. People are frantically
| issuing new NFTs every day, but the available sucker supply
| seems to have dried up. It's hard to tell, because wash
| sales to pump the price are so easy in the NFT space. This
| whole thing is starting to look like Pet Rock 2.0.
|
| Bitcoin and Etherium don't look so good right now. Both are
| around half of peak.
| zepto wrote:
| Crypto is different because the scumbags are _motivated by the
| currencies themselves_.
| elefanten wrote:
| I suppose this was supposed to sound like a snappy argument?
| It's a bland, impactless statement. Even if scumbags are
| infatuated with something, it can still have legitimate and
| beneficial uses / users.
|
| And the comment's wrong too... the scumbags probably want to
| cash their gains out to traditional currencies, they're least
| likely to be in it as technology true believers.
| zepto wrote:
| > Even if scumbags are infatuated with something,
|
| Nobody is taking about infatuation except you.
|
| Obviously the comment is talking about the incentive for
| people to try to drive the value of their holdings up.
|
| The scumbags are the ones who do this dishonestly.
|
| > And the comment's wrong too... the scumbags probably want
| to cash their gains out to traditional currencies, they're
| least likely to be in it as technology true believers.
|
| No. Anyone can be a scumbag. It has nothing to do with
| being in it for a quick buck or being a true believer or
| not. It's simply about what methods one is willing to use.
|
| So yes, Hodlers, and crypto-utopians can be scumbags too.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| I think what he was trying to say is that saying "crypto
| attracts scumbags" puts the onus purely on _consumers_ of
| the tech, when in fact a lot of the scummy behavior, hype
| and fraud is planned and encouraged by the people
| _implementing_ the technology, not only their users. That
| 's a significant departure from "any other movement".
| zepto wrote:
| > That's a significant departure from "any other
| movement".
|
| Exactly this. There are scumbags in every movement, but
| crypto has structural incentives for scumbaggery that
| make it distinct.
| sepiasaucer wrote:
| IMO the technology blockchain has only demonstrated success in
| 1 application which is cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency has only
| demonstrated success in 2 applications: speculative investment
| and illegal online purchases. I would include NFT's under the
| speculative investment category.
|
| These applications are obviously problematic for 3 main
| reasons: it wastes enormous amounts of energy, the investment
| is often at the expense of less tech/financial savvy people,
| and most people don't want it to be easier for criminals to
| conduct financial transactions.
|
| IMO, it is not a few bad apples spoiling the bunch. It is a
| bunch of bad apples with a few good apples mixed in. Even if
| your motivations in working in this space are good (not simply
| for your own technical stimulation/amusement), you are trading
| off furthering/enabling real world harm now against optimistic
| speculation about future positive outcomes.
| maxilevi wrote:
| I disagree. I use crypto to protect against high inflation in
| my country and mantain the value of the fruits of my labour.
| Where does that fit in your categories?
|
| Crypto and DeFi have a lot of applications, especially in
| third world countries with bad financial systems.
| Illniyar wrote:
| Your government has capital controls (mentioned in a
| different response) to prevent you from purchasing foreign
| currency.
|
| Which makes buying crypto (or stablecoin) illegal online
| purchase.
|
| Illegal doesn't always means wrong or immoral, depends on
| whether the laws are good or not.
| maxilevi wrote:
| It's illegal to buy dollars.
|
| I am buying an asset that is pegged to the USD dollar.
| That is not illegal neither is buying USD denominated
| bonds. In fact the goverment even has sold USD
| denominated bonds.
| sepiasaucer wrote:
| In the absence of a stable government backed currency it
| seems cryptocurrency could have some value. However,
| cryptocurrency is also unstable. You are speculating that
| holding crypto will be better over some period of time than
| any alternative value store you can access. That may well
| be true, but seems like that depends on what other options
| you have access to and would require more rigorous analysis
| of the tradeoffs. For example, if you were to say "crypto
| is a better currency than eggs" [1], that seems likely, but
| eggs don't require internet access and specialized
| knowledge of a particular technology.
|
| [1] https://www.economist.com/finance-and-
| economics/2018/07/19/w...
| maxilevi wrote:
| You are assuming I use BTC or ETH directly as currency
| but I use stablecoins like DAI which are pegged to the
| USD dollar.
|
| This allows me to hold currencies I wouldn't be able to
| buy because of capital controls by the government.
| sepiasaucer wrote:
| "Where does that fit in your categories?"
|
| It sounds like it falls mostly under illegal transactions
| because you are using crypto for something that would
| otherwise be illegal (avoiding capital controls). Is it
| technically illegal? I don't know. Is it ethically wrong?
| I guess not directly. However, I imagine there are also a
| lot of nefarious reasons somebody might want to avoid
| capital controls which crypto could also help facilitate.
| maxilevi wrote:
| It's illegal to buy dollars but not assets that track the
| USD dollar. Buying DAI is legal for the same reason
| buying USD denominated bonds is legal, they are not
| dollars and you are not taking them from the central
| bank.
|
| And either way I don't think grouping "criminal
| transactions" with "stuff that's illegal in X country" is
| fair. At many points in history governments outlawed
| things that are very wrong (e.g. nazi germany) Just
| because someone doesn't want to succumb to corrupt
| institutions doesn't mean he/she is a bad guy.
| notahacker wrote:
| > I use crypto to protect against high inflation in my
| country and mantain the value of the fruits of my labour.
| Where does that fit in your categories?
|
| This is obviously speculative investment.
|
| (Even if your local currency is so horrendous it lost more
| value than Bitcoin this month, less volatile ways of
| hedging exist. Maybe you bought lower or changed
| cryptoassets so you've gained far more than BTC fell, but
| that's speculative investment and trading, not maintaining
| value)
| maxilevi wrote:
| Its not. I am using stablecoins to hold currencies I
| wouldn't be able to hold because of capital controls.
| anon9001 wrote:
| So what you're saying is that you buy ETH for its utility
| of processing transactions on tokenized assets? And you
| get more value out of spending the ETH on gas than it
| cost you to purchase it?
|
| That sure sounds like a useful product to me.
|
| I think HN is so anti-crypto because so few people in the
| industry currently have your use-case.
|
| Personally, I think what you're doing is exciting and
| helps put a value on the utility of paying to run these
| contracts.
| maxilevi wrote:
| Yes and it's also much easier to trade tokenized assets
| between people than bonds or other financial instruments.
|
| Also the whole DeFi ecosystem allows you to use your
| tokenized assets in different ways, giving even more
| value to it.
|
| I think many people have my use case, it's just that you
| can't really see it unless you live in a country with a
| very mismanaged central bank. Which in my opinion is
| becoming more and more common every day.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Kind of similar to this Conspiracy Levels chart that was making
| the rounds a few months ago[1], including the crucial "departure
| from reality" tipping point, and the "XYZ as your group identity"
| level. No doubt promoters of major conspiracies have studied
| marketing, as they are are adept at generating belief and hype
| out of nothing.
|
| 1: https://m.imgur.com/XY5PAvd
| password54321 wrote:
| Covid coming from a lab is 'leaving science"? Well I'm glad
| whoever made that chart has it all figured out.
| jollybean wrote:
| Yes, they need to update that list.
|
| Jamie Metzel [1] makes a very rational case that the Lab Leak
| theory is very likely. Check out is interview with Lex. It's
| more than 4 hours long (!), but worth a listen.
|
| [1] https://jamiemetzl.com/origins-of-sars-cov-2/
| tripletao wrote:
| The creator of that graphic seems to have actually done so,
| at
|
| https://twitter.com/abbieasr/status/1462953203067240450
|
| "COVID-19 made in lab" has been revised to the narrower
| "COVID is a bioweapon". The remainder of the original
| broader claim ("COVID arose from reckless but not malicious
| virological research") appears nowhere on the new chart.
|
| Of course the new chart then puts "Iran Contra" in the same
| category as "UFOs"; so infographics are perhaps not the
| best arbiters of truth in general.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I think there are two theories that get conflated: 1) it
| was experimentation and leaked out of the lab accidentally
| and 2) it was weaponization and leaked out of the lab
| intentionally.
|
| I think sometimes one person says the former and another
| hears the latter and vice versa.
| notahacker wrote:
| Also, conflation between "a coronavirus escaping lab
| which studied animal coronaviruses is a plausible origin
| for an outbreak in humans", which is a well-supported
| claim and "SARs-COV-2 can't be a natural virus", which
| isn't (even before all the extraneous group identity
| stuff is added on). Seems the designer of the graphic was
| focused on the latter argument when he said "made in
| lab".
| mynameishere wrote:
| George Soros is a conspiracy theory? No, he's a real guy who
| has spent many millions to influence politics. How does
| somebody put together something so stupid as that chart? It's
| really impressive.
| Nuzzerino wrote:
| The difference is that chart you linked is actually reasonably
| well-made.
| Wronnay wrote:
| I don't agree with the categorization of "full self-driving" as
| "LEVEL 2: EXAGGERATED CLAIMS".
|
| There is no proof that self driving cars will ever be able to
| navigate in e.g. European cities with narrow streets and without
| lines on them.
|
| Full driving would mean driving autonomous everywhere and between
| a highway with visible signs and lines and streets without any
| markings is a big difference.
|
| its more like "LEVEL 3: UTOPIAN FUTURES" because there is the
| potential for it but no current systems can handle difficult
| situations in streets without clear markings.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Narrow streets can be equipped with some kind of helping
| beacons one day, much like they were equipped with street lamps
| and canalization in the previous centuries.
|
| Anyway, this is a fairly low percentage of the total street
| network. Even in Prague the medieval center is smallish (and
| many of those streets are off-limits to regular car traffic).
| boopboopbadoop wrote:
| > Narrow streets can be equipped with some kind of helping
| beacons one day
|
| That changes the goal posts in my opinion. The "self" part of
| "self-driving" no longer applies.
| hiptobecubic wrote:
| I mean, many people can't drive without safety features all
| over their cars, GPS to help them navigate, and road signs
| to tell them where to go.
|
| I don't see how "helping beacons" for robots are unfair but
| street lights are not.
| nexuist wrote:
| Does it matter? If investing in smart infrastructure is
| what it takes to recognize this reality, who is this a
| downside for? It's like saying we can't build any more
| intersections because we'd have to buy traffic lights.
| Retric wrote:
| > There is no proof
|
| That's an odd requirement. There is _no proof_ Intel will ever
| put out a faster chip. There is in general _no proof_ for any
| new technology because it hasn't been built yet.
|
| Narrow city streets aren't vastly different than normal city
| streets, and people used to constantly say _sure operating on
| highways is easy, show me self driving cars inside cities._ I
| think people underestimate how long self driving cars are going
| to take, but they are already good enough to be useful which
| means companies will continually invest in being just a little
| bit better.
|
| Looking back _automatic transmissions_ took decades and where
| seriously flawed for most of that time, but just a little bit
| better every year and eventually they became the default. Cruse
| control and every other major innovation went through that same
| cycle, it's just that once something is good enough to be the
| default it has been around so long nobody wakes up and says
| "wow it's finally ready" because it's been in use for a long
| time.
|
| IMO, take everything people are generally expecting self
| driving to be in 2030 and it's going to be ready in 2060 and
| the default by 2090.
| Wronnay wrote:
| I agree with your comment, but I understood the author's
| level 2 as something which can be realized with existing
| technology. Meaning there is already a prototype.
|
| There is no prototype for complete full driving, including
| very difficult situations - so I see that as level 3.
| Retric wrote:
| Level 2 says Tomorrow as in technology that's in
| development. I read Level 3 as when people talk about the
| potential for say intersections without traffic lights and
| the end to gridlock. That's not just exaggeration or
| extrapolation of current research but hopeful projections
| without anything even vaguely in the pipeline for
| development. Aka the semantic web and other rather
| grandiose ideas.
|
| The first generation of cruse control didn't shift gears
| making it useless for maintaining speed up and down steep
| hills but it provided the basic functionality on a
| reasonable subset of roads. It was still called cruse
| control. So, my point was a Tesla's ability to drive from a
| limited set of parking spaces to another set of parking
| spaces by crossing public streets, covers the basic
| description of self driving. It's a poor implementation but
| fulfills the basic premise of you not having to turn the
| steering wheel and ending up your destination even if it
| has a host of limitations. Doing that but in Paris is
| really more of the same.
|
| (Edited the above several times.)
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| How would one build a prototype for "complete full driving"
| ?
| hiptobecubic wrote:
| Honestly, small streets where there's really only one thing you
| can do (go straight forward but don't drive into anything) are
| not as hard as where cars are already driving today because the
| speeds are very low and the distances you have to consider are
| are pretty short. This is not like making unprotected lefts
| across 6 lanes of traffic in Beijing.
|
| The hype around "full self driving" is exaggerated because
| today it's not even "limited self driving," let alone SOTA.
| Wronnay wrote:
| Did you ever drove through e.g. city centers in Europe or
| Asia?
|
| There are not only missing lines but it's often also used by
| many people which walk on it. A self driving system doesn't
| only have to figure out where the steet ends and walkways
| begins but also has to correctly detect many moving people
| and animals.
|
| Additionally, there are frequently side streets or walkways
| which are not mapped in every map database...
| mberning wrote:
| The worst offenders in recent memory are self driving cars, block
| chain, VR, and "the metaverse".
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| NFTs, Theranos, AR, AI/ML, No/Low Code.
|
| "No Man's Sky" is also an interesting case study.
| password321 wrote:
| Not sure how AR, AI/ML or even No Mans Sky belong to the same
| list as NFTs. No Mans Sky has delivered on many things over
| time and chances are you used AI for something today even if
| you aren't aware of it. Maybe you mean AGI and how near in
| the future some promised it to be. AR is too early to even
| judge, with only Microsoft investing into it out of the
| reputable companies AFAIK.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| I do think there's a spectrum of pathological hype. On the
| one hand, there is manufactured hype, the NFTs and
| Theranos-end of the spectrum; on the other hand, there is
| hype from mismanaged expectations, the NMS side of the
| spectrum.
|
| While NMS did eventually get their act together, what they
| delivered on launch was very much not aligned with the
| expectations.
|
| AI solutions are hyped because they are AI solutions, not
| because of what they actually deliver. It's not that it has
| no uses, but the promises do not match up with the reality.
| Often it's enough to solve an already previously solved
| problem with AI to generate hype around a product, even if
| the AI solution is strictly worse than what's already on
| the market.
| Mezzie wrote:
| "No Man's Sky" is a fascinating example. I was really worried
| that was going to be a repeat of Spore.
| Ostrogodsky wrote:
| Cyberpunk 2077
| codebolt wrote:
| Self-driving cars, yes, but I'd say AI/ML in general reached at
| least level 3/4 at some point over the past few years. Seems to
| be cooling off a bit these days, though.
| dopidopHN wrote:
| What about 3D printing ? It's tame now but I remember how it
| was supposed to change a lot of things in our every day life.
| Semaphor wrote:
| > "the metaverse"
|
| I'm probably in some kind of bubble, but is that hyped? I
| mainly hear about it on HN, maybe a bunch of joking off-hand
| comments on Reddit. No one else seem to care about it at all.
| So, my bubble in Germany, or is it actually _a thing_ in the
| USA?
| k__ wrote:
| I gave up on German tech news 5 years ago.
|
| They're always behind.
| Ostrogodsky wrote:
| As someone whose German is rusty and is try to not lose it,
| what kind of German media you think is worth the trouble?,
| in other words, publications where you will find insights
| that are not simply a repetition/regurgitation of what it
| is said in English.
| boucher wrote:
| One of the largest companies in the world has recently
| renamed itself Meta (verse is strongly implied), so on some
| level it must have a decent amount of hype.
| slightwinder wrote:
| Metaverse is something that is happening for a long time now.
| The Zuckerberg-Metaverse is just the latest step in this
| development that gave the fire new fuel. Maybe because of
| this slow burning hype the general impression of it is rather
| low.
| detaro wrote:
| Even fairly mainstream news already went on about how the
| Microsoft acquisition of Activision is all about Microsoft
| getting ready for metaverse.
| pessimizer wrote:
| 3D TV.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| kkoncevicius wrote:
| I am not sure if there is a linear trajectory. With some hypes
| the "othering" starts early and itself acts as a booster for
| hype, by creating the "initiated" group that everyone wants to be
| a part of.
|
| Also, unrelated, but for some reason, while reading, I kept
| thinking that COVID-19 vaccines fit all these levels quite well.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I wish the chart had a negative dimension as well, or if not a
| negative one, then increase the number of levels of hype.
|
| I say this because as I read it, I think how little hype I put
| into some of my work, so little that it may not even register on
| the base level of hype. The downplaying, even discounting
| successes or achievements I've attained with products and such.
|
| Perhaps such things don't belong there as they're almost the
| opposite of hype, and yet I think it would help me see the full
| spectrum of promotion and help me navigate it more confidently.
| rambambram wrote:
| Good idea.
|
| I was also thinking about 'negativity', but more along the
| lines of: I'm missing the author saying what the legal gray
| areas are. I mean, in level 2 he already talks about "fraud".
| ;)
| jimkleiber wrote:
| Ah yea, I like that idea of maybe talking about the legal
| risks or overall cons (pun intended) of the different levels
| :-)
| MeteorMarc wrote:
| Quantum computing scores high as well on the hype scale.
| bregma wrote:
| This chart should be rewritten in Rust.
| ferdowsi wrote:
| Hah I was also thinking how neatly these categories fit into
| the worst examples of language evangelism. Some are definitely
| at this stage!
|
| > Examples here are (again) the cryptocurrency scene which has
| been pretty good at othering critics as "no-coiners" or lately
| with the phrase "have fun staying poor".
| yakattak wrote:
| I prefer Gartner's Hype Cycle[1] way of displaying this. This
| post seems pretty inspired by it but the removal of the graph
| really makes it harder to grok quickly.
|
| Still, the trend seems to be: 1. New technology, over promises 2.
| Marketing latches onto the overpromise and bolsters it,
| regardless of lack of research 3. Companies built around the
| technology fail, until a few find the niche the technology fits
| into.
|
| Makes you wonder how much money is wasted on just trying to
| capitalize on new tech. The last company I worked for wasted
| loads chasing the latest and greatest.
|
| [1]:
| https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/3887767/understanding-g...
| jollybean wrote:
| There are many products, indeed, entire categories, that never
| come out of the 'trough of disillusionment'.
| WA wrote:
| Gartner's hype cycle is what many products go through and they
| settle at some kind of normal utility. This post describes the
| amplitude (y axis) of Gartner's chart imho.
| [deleted]
| claaams wrote:
| Ah, the El*n M*sk model of marketing.
|
| Hyperloop? Cybertruck? Fully self driving cars?
| thriftwy wrote:
| Why would having a technology as a part of group identity lead to
| utopian claims? Unless the group/technology feels threatened.
|
| Linux is an important part of my identity and I will happily
| watch how infidels struggle with their malware-ridden proprietary
| tech, knowing most of them can't be saved anyway.
| pram wrote:
| Linux already went through its hype cycle like 20 years ago.
| I'd say the high water mark of that cycle was around the
| release of Cathedral and the Bazaar and the destruction of the
| VA Linux stock.
|
| Now it's deeply in the plateau of productivity.
| umvi wrote:
| I'm a Linux fanboy too, but let's not fool ourselves. If Linux
| ever went "mainstream", then the amount of malware targeting it
| would rise precipitously. See: Android
| nexuist wrote:
| Linux doesn't need malware because what use can scammers get
| out of someone who can't even afford a MacBook? /s
| anonporridge wrote:
| See rich people who "dress down".
| thriftwy wrote:
| Desktop is falling out of favour anyway, so its potential
| impact is debatable.
| umvi wrote:
| This doesn't just apply to new technology but also
| social/political/economic ideas too. I would have liked to see
| levels beyond 5 (i.e. the part where reality catches back up, the
| hype collapses, the backlash starts, etc)
| nerdponx wrote:
| Maybe "collapse" isn't itself a "level of hype", but something
| separate from hype.
|
| But I agree that this applies to things other than technology.
| Sometimes it seems like _most_ political movements lie
| somewhere between levels 3 and 5.
| sentrysapper wrote:
| airhorns
| winphone1974 wrote:
| The tech industry has always been bullish on "the future" so I
| don't think this is different today; what does feel different is
| it seems hype is now the end product vs. hype about the
| underlying advancement. This may be inevitable in the highly
| commercialized, mature space that the internet has become.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-23 23:01 UTC)