this is an argument much like min wage: that it's BETTER for poor people to not be allowed to get X at all (where X is "a job" or "a lawyer") unless it can get one that meets some 3rd party's standard
I'm sympathetic to @WhippleMarc's desire to make a living, but not this arghttps://twitter.com/WhippleMarc/status/1166189576546848768 …
-
Show this thread
-
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs Retweeted Marc “Except You, You're All Right” Whipple
2/ and this is special pleading: sure, it's OK to put mechanical engineers (who make slide rules) or software engineers (who make code) out of work by allowing unfettered competition, but NOT <slaps hood of profession> THIS sacred trust!https://twitter.com/WhippleMarc/status/1166189577872318465 …
ⓘ Dogs don't have thumbs added,
Marc “Except You, You're All Right” Whipple @WhippleMarcThe world is going to do what the world is going to do. But for the love of Chesterton, *think* about what you are doing. Think about the consequences. Think about how “creative destruction” is not the same force when it is applied to slide-rule factories...Show this thread2 replies 2 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @MorlockP
I am not arguing that if we don't have slide rules, we shouldn't have mechanical engineers. I am arguing that the fact that we need mechanical engineers doesn't mean we need slide rules.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
and what I was trying to argue was that your use of "creative destruction is ok in the realm of slide rules" means that you're willing to sacrifice the jobs of the guys who design and make them ...which is fine! I'm also willing to make them compete fiercely to survive!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.