Discover Top Posts Tagged with #128-bit

I think the reason Web 3.0 is failing so hard is that it wasn't really necessary. It was the typical corporate bullshit of, "We have to move forward so we have something to sell to these idiots. What do you mean the current product is already fine and everyone wants to keep it?? Don't you know we have money to make!"

Web 2.0 came into existence because average people started using mobile internet devices, and they soon outnumbered the old-timers with their desktop computers. Smaller, vertical screens, and the necessity for information to be as easy to find and read made Web 2.0 a requirement for the internet to keep succeeding.

Web 3.0 on the other hand... wasn't started because of anything. There aren't any new types of devices or users that require web access in a uniquely different way. A bunch of Silicon Valley nerds just started it because they needed to feel above other internet users, like their predecessors once did.

Web 1.0 was like 32-bit. It was good for a while, but eventually we had to move on because its limitations started showing.

Web 2.0 is like 64-bit. It was great at its inception, and it's still great today! Because of exponential growth, 64-bit is still capable of handing most technological needs for now and the foreseeable future.

Web 3.0 is like 128-bit. It's unnecessary for common computers right now. It's more effort and sweat than it's worth. One day, there will be 128-bit computers in your palms, and there will be a Web 3.0 (maybe called Web 3.1 or 4.0 because of what we botched in the 20s), but right now... we just don't need it, and the people saying we need Web 3.0 are the same as people saying we need 128-bit right now: It's just not true at the present moment because Web 2.0 and 64-bit are still very, very capable and very, very future-proofed technologies.