For example, on page 12 Lanier elucidates the idea that "entrenched software philosophies become invisible through ubiquity." It begins, "An even deeper locked-in idea is the notion of the file. Once upon a time, not too long ago, plenty of computer scientists thought the idea of the file was not so great." The section ends, "The idea of the file has become so big that we are unable to conceive of a frame large enough to fit around it in order to assess it empirically."
In between are three sparse paragraphs. The first paragraph mentions Xanadu and the original iteration of the Mac OS as examples of systems that didn't use files. The second and third paragraphs complain that now every system uses files, that we're locked in to using filesystems, and we can't even conceive of systems without files.
At this point while reading I'm very curious about Xanadu and trying to conceive of file-less systems myself. I'm desperately waiting for the author to support the analogy, but he quickly moves on to claim that "[lock-in] could happen soon to the definition of a human being."
Wait, what? Stop, and tell me about these file-less organizational systems. Why can't we conceive of them anymore? Why didn't they gain traction? Prove to me that we're really locked-in and that's a bad thing. I'm not accepting your segue -- how exactly is this a worthy example for your larger point?
And so it goes. I've picked one example, but it's truly page after page of baseless assumptions, spacey ideas, thin examples, and doubtful conclusions. Where is the evidence? I'm screaming at the pages imagining my high school english teacher scribbling "illustrate!" in red ink across the margins.