I’m not sure what this articles point is. Disruption as called by Christensen, Andreeson, Thiel, etc all talks about displaced jobs and industries. I don’t think this is unknown. It’s just that the benefits outweigh the costs (to some).
So this isn’t an alternative history more than it is just a weird anecdote or two without follow-up.
I’m not sure what Wired is as a magazine any more. It really needs knowledgeable editors to plan and shape stories along some theme. I feel like these stories about rich and bad Silicon Valley is are pretty common and all boil down to the same reality that Silicon Valley has high margins and makes a lot of money for in demand employees and stockholders. This isn’t relevatory though and I’m not sure what Wired’s angle is.
> I’m not sure what this articles point is.
...
> So this isn’t an alternative history more than it is just a weird anecdote or two without follow-up.
It's weird. The article seems to be a book review somehow cast as a news article or thought piece. Read as a book review it's a perfectly reasonable and informative.
So this isn’t an alternative history more than it is just a weird anecdote or two without follow-up.
I’m not sure what Wired is as a magazine any more. It really needs knowledgeable editors to plan and shape stories along some theme. I feel like these stories about rich and bad Silicon Valley is are pretty common and all boil down to the same reality that Silicon Valley has high margins and makes a lot of money for in demand employees and stockholders. This isn’t relevatory though and I’m not sure what Wired’s angle is.