No, I have not backpedalled my argument. You can’t claim I said a thing I didn’t say and then accuse me of changing my position for restating my point. I mean, you can, but it’s some bullshit and it’s not gonna fly. That’s why I don’t like calling out these things in public, it really brings the Google out of people.
I claimed there is no indication that it will happen the first time, you claimed that I was saying it would definitely not happen and I restated that no, what I said is there was no indication that it would go one way or the other. So no, there is no indication that it will happen.
You can keep pushing your hypothetical all you want, it won’t get any or more likely. You’ve decided to make up that scenario in reverse, because you have chosen a football team to support and are now imagining ways to justify that selection. The exact same scenario could be played out in reverse. If you’re building a doomsday scenario out of whole cloth you can get as convoluted as you want and say it seems likely to you. I could poke holes on it, and there are plenty to be poked, but that’d require accepting the premise and arguing about the hypothetical instead of reality. That’s why it’s a frequent fallacious argument in the first place. So we’re not doing that.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the argument you’re doing mental gymnastics to bypass is still that interoperability and decentralization only actualize when people need to move. The amount of concentration prior to people moving is, and remains, irrelevant, at least in relation to the importance of the feature existing in the first place.
No, I have not backpedalled my argument. You can’t claim I said a thing I didn’t say and then accuse me of changing my position for restating my point. I mean, you can, but it’s some bullshit and it’s not gonna fly. That’s why I don’t like calling out these things in public, it really brings the Google out of people.
I claimed there is no indication that it will happen the first time, you claimed that I was saying it would definitely not happen and I restated that no, what I said is there was no indication that it would go one way or the other. So no, there is no indication that it will happen.
You can keep pushing your hypothetical all you want, it won’t get any or more likely. You’ve decided to make up that scenario in reverse, because you have chosen a football team to support and are now imagining ways to justify that selection. The exact same scenario could be played out in reverse. If you’re building a doomsday scenario out of whole cloth you can get as convoluted as you want and say it seems likely to you. I could poke holes on it, and there are plenty to be poked, but that’d require accepting the premise and arguing about the hypothetical instead of reality. That’s why it’s a frequent fallacious argument in the first place. So we’re not doing that.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the argument you’re doing mental gymnastics to bypass is still that interoperability and decentralization only actualize when people need to move. The amount of concentration prior to people moving is, and remains, irrelevant, at least in relation to the importance of the feature existing in the first place.