The annoying thing about that book is where he butchers the natural world analogies he uses to support his thesis. If he’s winging it on those and not even bothering to get the nuances those right, then I can’t take him seriously on his real shit. It’s such an unforced error, ironically due to a lack of work.
I'll say it again. Proof-of-work is a field of study and almost nobody is studying it. Read #softwar
Discussion
Interesting. What's an example of this from the book?
Been awhile so i can’t remember exactly, but it was related to the “everything in nature is a war of eat or be eaten” when that’s a gross oversimplification that overlooks all the cooperative/symbiotic and other contrarian examples in nature. The oversimplification of the natural world dynamics to fit the power projection thesis annoyed me at the time, but I’d have to do work to give a better critique and I’m too lazy to go back and read that part again 😂
He talked about symbiotic relationships in nature too
The natural analogies merely serve to illuminate the concept of benefit to cost ratio of attack and how abstractions remove cost of attack and lead to ruin. By adding that cost back, the natural order can be restored.
In fact, the more contradictory it is, while still adhering to that law, the more durable the thesis becomes.