You're not confused, but there is a nuance. I'm trying to walk a fine line of not criticizing them for discovering this late into their process (maybe they kne

You're not confused, but there is a nuance. I'm trying to walk a fine line of not criticizing them for discovering this late into their process (maybe they knew all along but were busy inventing), but also questioning why they couldn't see this sooner. Trying to get to the heart of what took this innovation/recognition/learning to happen. I am making an observation - when each new "fad" or "hype cycle" tech starts, it seems as though the pattern knowledge of what came before is discarded, or, disregarded as "legacy" or possibly even just forgotten. It feels like a knowledge transfer is missing. It would be terrible if, we, as an industry aren't passing down knowledge and reinventing hard won pattern discoveries efficiently. Did this pattern Uber discovered come from studying onion architecture, DDD, etc first, finding the limitations, and then scaling them? Or did this arise from throwing away everything that came before (or not knowing about it), forging an undiscovered path, and then rediscovering the old patterns could be applied? If the latter, what can be learned to make this process of discovery and linkage to existing patterns more efficient? I think this article shows innovation is tricky, or, the risk (and potential reward) at the bleeding edge. Leaving behind design constraints of what came before might be necessary. Maybe I'm trying to say, as an industry we need to balance exploitation of previous knowledge and our attitudes about how we feel about "legacy", with the unquenchable thirst for the next new innovation?