[akkartik]

> I don't think you're conceptualizing the criticism correctly. This is not "B is better than A". This is a case where B never comes along because A exists.

This risk is omnipresent in the universe. We never know what possible futures we cut off when we make a fork in the road. You don't ever step into the same river twice. However, this risk also applies to the projects you like. If we all worried about this we'd not do anything. Rhetoric like "Gemini sucking the air out of the room," "person who spends 250 hours working on Gemini," "it's like voluntourism," -- I could just as well replace Gemini with triplescripts throughout your comments.

[cxr]

No, you could only do that if the basis of my comment were about generic, FOMO-driven hand-wringing, where A is unbound, so substitute any A and the criticism remains true. That's not what we're talking about. The criticism involves the observation that Gemini, specifically, is bad.

[akkartik]

If Gemini specifically is bad, you should be able to argue that without making these other arguments that apply to any new project. Convince people they shouldn't care about it. So far I haven't found that side compelling. If you concentrate your energies there, I might.

[cxr]

They can't be applied to any new project. I don't know why you're ignoring this, even with the clarification using the well-understood concept of free vs bound variables. "These other arguments" are a direct response to the question you posed <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30068014>.

My position is something that I know you already agree with. You can't write, "Surely anything Gemini does or doesn't isn't as damaging as status quo" and think that my argument is unsound—because it's the same concept.

> If you concentrate your energies there

The last thing that we need is _more_ energy being lost to the Gemini sinkhole. That's the whole point!

[akkartik]

I don't understand. What clarification? I don't see any mention of free vs bound variables anywhere in this thread or your links. I meant energies in describing the technical shortcomings of Gemini, and concentrating all the energy you're already willing to expend, not adding more. If you're tired of arguing, so am I. I'll step away now.

[cxr]

> > This risk is omnipresent in the universe[...] If we all worried about this we'd not do anything. Rhetoric like "Gemini sucking the air out of the room," "person who spends 250 hours working on Gemini,"[...] I could just as well replace Gemini with[...]

> you could only do that if the basis of my comment were about generic, FOMO-driven hand-wringing, where A is unbound, so substitute any A and the criticism remains true. That's not what we're talking about.