I think that's confusing the arguments.

Who on earth wants to buy $50,000 of digital 'land' to build a $300,000 digital house on? Nevermind that that isn't even remotely a new idea (hi second life) who actually wants that to be a thing besides the people proposing the idea who stand to make $350,000? Even full something as wicked cool as full-dive VR, you're still going to need an actual damn house and who on Earth is going to pay that much for 1s and 0s?

It's like someone looked at how much money fools have thrown Star Citizens way and wondered how they can get in on that action instead of saying 'this is really really stupid.' $42000 for a video game spaceship? Someone has too much money and no sense.

At least that's the sort of thing I think the article is taking a shot at. Solutions in search of a problem and solutions to problems that not only don't solve the problem but bring in whole new ones. Wild ideas about services that don't actually service anyone or anything but the insiders who are designing them and imagining a need for that service from whole cloth.

Very fair. Maybe if the statement was that people have lost faith in current tech firms to solve these problems? Or maybe only some of them like meta in particular. I don’t think Meta is about to fix anything but AI from new tech firms might.

Maybe the better statement is that any tech firm that has arrived at the Desert of the Virtual is on course to its own demise - though I guess that’s pretty circular reasoning. Any company that isn’t solving real world problems is going to start failing as a company seems like a pretty redundant take on capitalism