Just listened to yet another piece on
🔥 disrupting tech
🔥 on an urgent topic
🔥 from a startup 🌈🦄
Could journalists who do these pieces at least *try* to be a *little* critical and ask questions rather than just copy the PR material?
🙌 If any company says they have very new, bleeding edge technology, chances are people have worked on it before, it may even be 20-odd years old and one part just recently became cheaper or improved. That's fine, it's still a biggie. Just be honest about it and acknowledge that tech is incremental.
☝️ If a company - especially a start-up - says "We're gonna be market ready next year!" - especially when all they have so far is a "lab prototype™" - that market readiness next year is horse poo.
⚡ If they say something along the line of "we're definitely going to be successful because we took this electrobrontotricafibulator from space-fusion-AI-tech and use it for X", then at least do more research on the thing than just looking up its correct pronounciation. Chances are there are half a dozen big caveats and it's certainly not a sure thing. Have the courage to contact someone else (unaffiliated) in the field.
</rant> Thanks for reading.
@cweickhmann Love this kind of rant. Full of points. Some potential points <added>:
(almost in order of your paragraphs after startup unicorn icon):
- journalists to some extent are repeaters (and yes better if they critiqued it a bit / apply something of a contrast or + / -)
- lots of models of hardware just have an added port or very minimal difference and performance is the same despite 'upto' prefix which are only in unique setup possible - I l❤️ve youtube/yewtu.be sources that blow dust on the new model as people stick to their existing model and realise they don't need to buy!
- A lot is hope or hype (for themselves and for others 'to believe' / make momentum for them)
</added> Thanks for reading :)