Confusion/hype around “Nice to have” and “Needed to have” things. (Hype on Meta)



The things that seem will become successful in the future do not present the fact that they are remarkable or utilitarian or as great as they are represented.
 
People so much hyped about Facebook named meta and the new face of the industry in this market shall rise, must realize that people who you saw who are optimistic are not the consumers of meta/Facebook/any-such new technology, they are content creators, businessmen, and investors.
 
First thing, Warren Buffet investing in Coco-Cola does not signify he appreciates the product. It only signifies the product is addictive and people won't hold back to using it and so there's an opportunity that may help him as an individual and can make utility out of it for him.
 
Second thing: Mark Zuckerberg, Gary Vaynerchuck, etc. who you see are optimistic about meta and other such technologies coming out, does not signify that these services are remarkable or utilitarian to the consumers. They are giving opinions from their point of view that this market may help them create more money.
 
These are technically the “nice to have” technologies or good-sounding technologies. People would say this a lot, "what problem does it even create? If people like hanging out in this type of digital world (using Instagram, Facebook, etc.), or if we can provide consumers a service where they can do what they want, or certainly they would get what they are seeking? Then Why is it a problem?"
 
A simple answer is an analogy of Kids or specifically toddlers watching those YouTube videos that are entertaining and watching those juicy things that kids in YouTube videos while eating and talking with parents (you got the idea what type of videos I am referring to: kind of those juicy things and some clay game videos available on YouTube that has millions of views) Sample video (https://youtu.be/JZnSKGBLWeo ) (Note: There is no attempt to showcase hate about this type of YouTube videos, it is just a sample as an example)
 
VS
 
Teaching your kids to do things that are their curiosity, but it is hard to work on them. Because doing them requires to go against the resistance, no matter kids are Curious about those things, but implementing on those things is hard, but it is a “need to have” (it is a need to have thing & not nice to have things) thing to work on.
 
Better recognize the concept 1st that, things that add betterment to your life are not about happiness, but they are about the hard work/practice because that hard work/practice is not attached to instant dopamine and spontaneous happiness, it is about long-term happiness.
 
And so, when those optimistic people around those technologies come around, you better realize, even tell them that they are talking and sharing about those “optimistic” views because it is their POV. The POV of businessmen, investors, and are optimistic around the topic at an individual level.
 
What is in it for you?
 
Just because investors, businessmen, entrepreneurs, are optimistic about technological advancement it has nothing to do with objective reality. Are writers in world coders or pro-level software developers?  There might be such people who are both, but the bullshit that technological advancements will lead all of us to become coders/businessmen/no-jobs is/are useless. There are jobs of teachers, lawyers, architectures, designers, writers, cookers, YouTube's, janitors, freelancers, incubators, etc.
 
They are optimistic because it is an obvious thing that they will do, from their POV they want it to be more and more hyped.
 
What is in it for you objectively?
 
Are you OK, if your kids stick to that screen and answer you saying those same things that "I like doing this, why stop me" when you Stop them, OR will you teach them the difference between doing things you like and doing things that are necessary/needed to be done? Because no investor or businessman or entrepreneur ever specified those "things that people like" for people. Because you also like watching Netflix all day, but does it mean you should do it. It is not at all advisable. But because those entrepreneurs say you should do things that you like or this technology will be new future because it helps people do what they like, is not a good explanation because now I want to know what that liked word used here specifically means?
 
 
Think about the animal world for a minute, did you think about two different categories 1) cute animals you see 2) dangerous predators in the forest?
 
The thing is there is no such category. You think about it because people have constantly consumed those cute little animal vibes through Instagram and YouTube. It would be better to know and see the real, harsh, and brutal wildlife because that is the objective reality of nature? Watch the objective reality of wildlife and animals’ world on this Instagram page (@natureismetal) that was the only one that showed what reality is.  Better analyze those posts your own and make your own opinion.
 
Get back to the paragraph where I asked you the question about wildlife, Think about what you were thinking and what reality was?  Does any of those internet things help you realize what reality was or something utilitarian to you? The false vibe that you had about those topics was because you get what exactly you seek in the internet world, your thoughts are never challenged on the internet/new-technology world.
 
You did what felt good to you and not what was necessary to do i.e., you learned about cute animal vibes by doing things you liked which is scrolling through & wandering on the internet, but you did not do the thing which was necessary to do which was to do things like to read about the wildlife and put a little effort or any things that seem a pain to start but doing them is necessary because they are necessary things to be done. 

PS: (Some insights from Ex-Google and Ex-Facebook  employee and content creator:https://youtu.be/KL8mOb6H9N4  )

Comments