| > To use your analogy, the article's title is "The key to jobs in the future is not water but land." No, it isn't. > I don't think it's an over-reaction to understand that they are implying that the water is unimportant, Not only do they not say that, I seriously doubt they think that. > and also implying that the water won't help to fulfill the same needs that the land might fulfill. Well, that's a matter of opinion and you're welcome to disagree with the article, but I think that there are many important jobs that software can't do well. I certainly don't think that it's obvious that software will do all those things well any time soon. > there's no reason why analytical skills can't help us improve services that require a lot of emotional empathy Maybe, but the article says no such thing. > they are not as separate as "land" vs "water. At this point they are. > what I find ironic is an article that places such importance on emotional empathy is happy to use a divisive title like "The future is not X but Y What I find ironic is that this is not the title at all. > Obviously the people that personally hold greater weight for X are going to be annoyed. Why? That's not the title nor explicitly or implicitly said in the article at any point. What annoys me is that not only are you now in the position having far more power, but are annoyed at the claim that others may have some power as well, insisting that your power dominates theirs and balking at the idea that it may not. |