I’ve now lived through like 4-5 tech cycles accompanied by “but what is the use of X?” and “old Y can do what new X does and more, and better” conversations.
Sheer waste of time.
It never matters. X will do what X will do.
X and Y people rarely learn anything from the debate.
Conversation
Replying to
what if these conversations are more ??!! at the treatment of X like it's doing something entirely new
1
1
Replying to
They never are. It’s almost always “put the young whippersnappers in their place, how dare they disrespect hallowed traditions and fail to pay obseisance to this vaguely related thing?”
1
2
Replying to
really? never encountered "I invented X, it's so groundbreaking!" "uhh X was figured out like 60 years ago"
1
1
Replying to
There's always a delta. It's a values difference in how much credit you give the delta.
If someone turns EVIL in scrabble into DEVIL, you credit them for 1 letter, I credit them for 5.
Authority-respecting traditionalist values vs heretic values.
Every increment refactors our understanding of the whole a lot or a little. I tend to give the benefit of doubt to the heretical valuation. If the heretics are right it's a big deal. If they're wrong no big deal.
Traditionalists: nbd whether they're right or wrong.
1
3
Show replies
Scrabble word extension analogy seems fertile. The D enables possibilities that become evident later, which are rarely factored in by Y-defenders nor by X-promoters. We have to err on the side of new being possibly good either as is or in it bringing about good.
2
1


