4 ms·
The problem isn't that these machines are from the 1960s. It's that we stopped making machines like that. I'm sure someone somewhere along the line convinced so
by titzer 6y ago
The problem isn't that these machines are from the 1960s. It's that we stopped making machines like that. I'm sure someone somewhere along the line convinced someone that it'd be better to do it all over from scratch, but if these machines lasted 60 years, then they can't be all bad. In Italy, there are textile manufacturers that use looms that were built in the 1920s and still make cloth perfectly well, just like the old times.
We do this all the time with technology. It's because we're addicted to change, and we have no judgment about how much change we need and where.
- ta1234567890 6y ago> we're addicted to change, and we have no judgment about how much change we need and where. ^ this
- nradov 6y agoThat scenario isn't caused by an addiction to change. It's just not economically viable to continue manufacturing obsolete equipment for a shrinking customer base.
- zelphirkalt 6y agoAnd what causes that shrinking customer base? Apparently there is some kind of replacement, which is brought about by ... change. Whether we are addicted to change or not, might be another question though.
- pixl97 6y agoRight, just like I want to go back to a car that gets 3 gallons per mile.
- ImPostingOnHN 6y agoI agree that the problem isn't that these machines are from the 60s. They may have even been cutting edge then. Indeed, the problem is that the user of the machine faced a choice between 3 possibilities: replacing the machine as expertise in the old tech dwindled; building and maintaining that expertise over the course of decades; or doing neither, and letting the equipment inevitably lapse into its inevitable disrepair; and they chose the latter. Change is constant, which is good, because there is no progress without it. The only choice we have as individuals is how, and how well, we adapt to it.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]