no offense, but this is absurdly reductionist.
I guess its apropos for twitter.
I guess its apropos for twitter.
Analogies are simplified models, all models are wrong, some are really wrong, but some are really useful.
The best professors are using them to explain complex phenomenons in simple terms.
I compressed decades of my history learning into a single tweet here. Most people are unable to be succinct. They're writing 500 pages books about subjects that can be summarized in a tweet.
Please show what's wrong with the way I explaining the evolution of work?
As far as its incorrectness, this model implies both that this history of work is a progression, which it's not, and that each stage succeeds the previous, which it does not. Many of these stage overlap, sometimes by millennia.
In any case, it's cute. Lighten up a bit.