I agree. In principle. But I don't think that the two perspectives are equivalent, unless you think the group of people who won't be greatly served by this machine because it strikes the wrong compromises, are somehow equal in numbers or importance to the ones who will, because it does. Which I think is preposterous. But time will tell of course.
Ahh, that doesn't quite follow
Yes, I probably put too fine a point on that. The point a was trying to make was that some people seem to dismiss all the ways in which this machine is better (which is most or all of them), because it is not better enough. Which I think is a strange, entitled way to judge a it.
I agree. In principle. But I don't think that the two perspectives are equivalent, unless you think the group of people who won't be greatly served by this machine because it strikes the wrong compromises, are somehow equal in numbers or importance to the ones who will, because it does. Which I think is preposterous. But time will tell of course.
Ahh, that doesn't quite follow
Yes, I probably put too fine a point on that. The point a was trying to make was that some people seem to dismiss all the ways in which this machine is better (which is most or all of them), because it is not better enough. Which I think is a strange, entitled way to judge a it.