Now knowing that I fall into the family of “candid anecdotalist”, classifying what /how I’m writing seems easier suddenly. a long text (one that ended up with the notion of “candid anecdotalist” – the road going through David Sedaris and then back again, then turning David Sedaris into Kenneth Udut and contrasting) becomes easier to have it analyze.
“The writer is a candid techno-anecdotalist who is cautious about predictions and overly optimistic promises of technological advancement due to personal disappointments and industry setbacks. Despite this, they remain fascinated by the progress and potential of technology, having grown up with a fascination for computing and AI. Their experiences with investing and observing stock market trends has made them skeptical about blindly following predictions and graphs of progress. They believe that progress is possible, but that it must overcome the sluggishness and agendas of humanity to achieve its goals.”[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]