I ask myself the same thing almost everyday and then that one really cool thing comes along. Yep pretty much mental gambling in the same way other social media is. I got rid of all of that, HN is my last hold out for now.
I wouldnt say it is bad but be careful of what you wish for.
On the flip side if someone is merely after fame that is not such a bad thing by comparison. It is not like those that seek wealth and power, it is at least going a more ethereal and potentially much less destructive goal. Having lots of fame doesn't necessarily take from others.
The problem with a lot of fame is that the more of it you get, the more decided people will be. A good modern example would be Taylor Swift. Some people love her, many don't even notice but some call her Taydolf Swifler.
Turns out you cannot get just the good, you have to have the bad come with it as well. Unless you are Weird Al, everybody loves him!
I do see where you are coming from but alas, language is an ever moving democracy. As much as many would like to define it in certain terms - it is largely beyond control.
This is why the English of Shakespeare doesn't hold up today because we are constantly adding and changing these things in a wonderfully organic fashion. It just makes it difficult to define.
The question is should we define it or is it like catching the wind with a net?
Another example is the word Monetize. It used to mean to turn a item into a form of money like currency. Almost nobody uses it like this nowadays. Decimate is another one.
For there to be famous people, there has to be non famous people. In the same way that up needs down, black needs white.
A figure I saw once was based on "do they have a Wikipedia page" as counting as famous. And the ratio was something like 50,000:1 relative to the population.
Would you bet your lives actions on a 50,000 to 1 chance? And even then do you think it would be possitive? Sometimes fame is the worst thing that can happen to someone. Being anonymous can be a blessing in disguise.
I keep forgetting the military angle. Again a pessimistic take but when I see things like SpaceX saying point to point travel to anywhere in the world in 30 minutes - maybe the message should be 30 minutes point to point explosive payload.
While yes this is a pessimistic take on it, the book 'Dark Age America' called out the problems of the original Concord and I think it applies to Boom as well. The authors argument being that Boeing pulling out of the 2707 SST project, while at the time was seen as a massive loss, turned out to be one of the smartest moves they had done in the space.
Yes, super sonic flight and things like Boom are a massive technical achievement, there is no doubt about that. But, we should not conflate technical capabilities with economic viability. Concord was very technically viable, but it was an economic white elephant.
This thing could see a role in the luxury space but I don't think we can reconcile the issue of brute forcing physics and cheap transport for the masses.